iWM^mffltimmmmmm 






&&Mm 



AAaaA*a 



£\Aa - . 



t A/MM 



mmW^fmmim 



; LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, f 

j^,:tta 

__ j 

J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. j 



rTfrfoM^TT-i 









IAaAAMS 



v 0^ A AAnA 






raweH2K£U£B(XjlfCj 



m aa ; ■ «.. lA/V . a»&2 



isssssiwii 



-^^^ a *"^-v 



mwmmsm, 






ilMlP^ 






JJTTArJATJJi 



:>^^^aS\^ 



^RiMAAV^ 



raXJ-iTTT !'!■ 1 1 TtjaUuI 



'M^^ShtiMm 



mmmmm 



lA&&AftftftftQAAii 






wrtTO 



WAAftftAA, 



WaaaVO/ 



INFANT BAPTISM 
SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE: 



BAPTISM 



SPRINKLING OR AFFUSION, 



THE MOST SUITABLE AND EDIFYING MODE 



By SAMUEL MILLER, D.D, 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION; 

199 



A. 



3>i 



ADVERTISEMENT. 

The substance of ihe following- discourses was delivered, in two sermons, m the 
church in Freehold, Monmouth county, New Jersey, on the 29th of September. 
1834. A desire for their publication having- been expressed by some who heard 
them, I have thought proper to revise and enlarge the whole, and present it in 
the present form. The subject is one which has given rise to much warm discus- 
sion, and it would seem, at first view, to be a wore of supererogation, if not of 
still more unfavourable character, to trouble the Christian community with an- 
other treatise upon it. But our Antipcedobaptist brethren appear to be resolved 
that it shall never cease to be agitated; and as, indetd, the constant stirring of 
this controversy seems to furnish no small share of the very aliment on which they 
depend for sub.-isteme as a denomination, they cannot be expected to let it rest. 
The great importance of the subject, in my estimation ; and the hope that this 
little volume may reach and benefit some, who are in danger of being drawn into 
the toils of error, and have no opportunity of perusing larger works, have induced 
me to undergo the labour of preparing it for the press. 

My object is not to write for the learned, but to present the subject in that 
brief, plain, popular manner which is adapted to the case of those who read but 
little. I have, therefore, designedly avoided the introduction of much matter 
which propi-tly belongs to the subject, and which is to be found in larger trea- 
tises ; and have especially refrained from entering further into the field of philo- 
logical discussion, than was absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of my 
plan. 

If 1 know my own heart, my purpose is, not to wound the feelings of a human 
being; not to stir up strife; but to provide a little manual, better adapted than 
any of this class that I have seen, for the use of those Presbyterians who are con- 
tinually assaulted, and sometimes perplexed, by their Baptist neighbours. May the 
Divine benediction rest upon the humble offering I S. M. 

Prii.cefon. .fiilv 1S7J 






Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1835, by Dr. A. W. Mitchell, 
in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania. 



200 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



DISCOURSE I. 

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say- 
ing, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into 
mine house and abide there. — Acts xvi. 15. 

As man has a bod)' as well as a soul, it has pleased infi- 
nite wisdom to appoint something in religion adapted to both 
parts of our nature. Something to strike the senses, as well 
as to impress the conscience and the heart ; or rather, some- 
thing which might through the medium of the senses, reach 
and benefit the spiritual part of our constitution. For, as 
our bodies in this world of siri and death, often become sour- 
ces of moral mischief and pain, so, by the grace of God, they 
are made inlets to the most refined moral pleasures, and 
means of advancement in the divine life. 

But while the outward senses are to be consulted in reli- 
gion, they are not to be invested with unlimited dominion. 
Accordingly the external rites and ceremonies of Christi- 
anity are few and simple, but exceedingly appropriate and 
significant. We have but two sacraments, the one emble- 
matical of that spiritual cleansing, and the other of that spiri- 
tual nourishment, which we need both for enjoyment and 
for duty. To one of these sacramental ordinances there is a 
pointed reference in the original commission given by their 
Master to the apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the Gospel to every creature, — baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) And, accord- 
ingly, wherever the Gospel was received, we find holy 
baptism reverently administered as a sign and seal of mem- 
bership in the family of Christ. Thus on the occasion to 
which our text refers, "a certain woman," we are told, 
" named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, 
heard Paul and Silas preach in the city of Philippi ; and the 
Lord opened her heart, so that she attended unto the things 
which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, 
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have 

201 



6 INFANT BAPTISM 

judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house 
and abide there." 

I propose, my friends, from these words, to address you 
on the subject of Christian Baptism. You are sensible 
that this is a subject on which much controversy has exist- 
ed, in modern times, among professing Christians. It shall 
be my endeavour, by the grace of God, with all candour and 
impartiality, to inquire what the Scriptures teach concerning 
this ordinance, and what appears to have been the practice in 
regard to it in the purest and best ages of the Christian 
church, as well as in later times. May I be enabled to 
speak, and you to hear as becomes those who expect in a 
little while, to stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 

There are two questions concerning baptism to which I 
request your special attention at this time, viz : Who are the 
•proper subjects of this ordinance ? And in what manner 
ought it to be administered ? To the first of these questions 
our attention will be directed in the present, and the en- 
suing discourse. 

I. Who are to be considered as the proper subjects of 
Christian Baptism ? 

That baptism ought to be adminstered to all adult persons, 
who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and who 
have not been baptized in their infancy, is not doubted by 
any. In this all who consider baptism as an ordinance at 
present obligatory are agreed. But it is well known that 
there is a large and respectable body of professing Christians 
among us who believe, and confidently assert, that baptism 
ought to be confined to adults ; who insist, that when pro- 
fessing Christians bring their infant offspring, and dedicate 
them to God, and receive for them the washing of sacra- 
mental water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, they entirely pervert and misapply an 
important Christian ordinance. We highly respect the sin- 
cerity and piety of many who entertain these opinions ; but 
we are perfectly persuaded that they are in error, nay in 
great and mischievous error ; in error which cannot fail of 
exerting a most unhappy influence on the best interests of the 
Church of God. We have no doubt that the visible church 
is made up, not only of those who personally profess the true 
religion, but also of their children ; and that we are bound not 
only to confess Christ before men for ourselves, but also to 
bring our infant seed in the arms of faith and love, and pre- 
sent them before the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once 
a seal of God's covenant with his people, and an emblem of 
202 



INFANT BAPTISM. 7 

those spiritual blessings which, as sinners, we and our chil- 
dren equally and indispensably need. 

Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, with entire con- 
fidence are the folio wing ; 

1. Because in all Jehovah's covenants with his profes- 
sing people, from the earliest ages, and in all states of so- 
ciety, their infant seed have been included. That this was 
the case with regard to the first covenant made with Adam 
in paradise, is granted by all •, certainly by all with whom 
we have any controversy concerning infant baptism. And 
indeed the consequences of the violation of that covenant to 
all his posterity, furnish a standing and a mournful testimony 
that it embraced them all. The covenant made with Noah, 
after the deluge, was, as to this point, of the same character. 
Its language was, " Behold, I establish my covenant with 
thee and with thy seed.'''' The covenant with Abraham was 
equally comprehensive. " Behold," says Jehovah, " my 
covenant is with thee. Behold, I establish my covenant 
with thee, and with thy seed, after thee." The Covenants 
of Sinai and of Moab, it is evident, also comprehended the 
children of the immediate actors in the passing scenes, and 
attached to them, as well as to their fathers, an interest in the 
blessings or the curses, the promises or the threatenings 
which those covenants respectively included. Accordingly 
when Moses was about to take leave of the people, he ad- 
dressed them as " standing before the Lord their God, with 
their little ones, and their wives, to enter into covenant with 
the Lord their God." (Deut. xxix. 10 — 12.) And when 
we come to the New Testament economy, still we find the 
same interesting feature not only retained, but more stri- 
kingly and strongly displayed. Still the promise, it is de- 
clared, is "to us and our children, even as many as the Lord 
our God shall call." 

Now, has this been a feature in all Jehovah's covenants 
with his people in every age ? And shall we admit the idea 
of its failing in that New Testament or Christian covenant, 
which, though the same in substance with those which pre- 
ceded it, excels them all in the extent of its privileges, and 
in the glory of its promises ? It cannot be. The thought 
is inadmissible. But farther, 

2. The close and endearing connection between parents 
and children affords a strong argument in favour of the 
church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The 
voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in 
behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents from 

203 



8 INFANT BAPTISM. 

their offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in 
which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to 
place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and 
to natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem 
is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it be that 
when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Re- 
deemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his 
flesh, have no connection with it ? It is not so in any other 
society that the great moral Governor of the world ever 
formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born 
citizens of the State in which their parents resided at the 
time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are plenary 
citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to all the pri- 
vileges of that relation, whenever they become capable of ex- 
ercising them. From these duties they cannot be liberated. 
Of these privileges they cannot be deprived, but by the 
commission of crime. But why should this great principle 
be set aside in the church of God ? Surely it is not less 
obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature. The ana- 
logies which pervade all the works and dispensations of God 
are too uniform and striking to be disregarded in an inquiry 
like the present. But we hasten to facts and considerations 
still more explicitly laid down in Holy Scripture. 

3. The actual and acknowledged ehvrch-membership of 
infants under the Old Testament economy is a decisive 
index of the divine will in regard to this matter. 

Whatever else may be doubtful, it is certain that infants 
were, in fact, members of the church under the former dis- 
pensation ; and as such, were the regular subjects of a cove- 
nant seal. When God called Abraham, and established his 
covenant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in 
the most express terms, in that covenant, but he also appoint- 
ed an ordinance by which this relation of his children to the 
visible church was publicly ratified and sealed, and that 
when they were only eight days old. If Jewish adults 
were members of the church of God, under that economy, 
then, assuredly, their infant seed were equally members, for 
they were brought into the same covenant relation, and had 
the same covenant seal impressed upon their flesh as their 
adult parents. This covenant, moreover, had a respect to 
spiritual as well as temporal blessings. Circumcision is ex- 
pressly declared, by the inspired apostle, to have been " a 
seal of the righteousness of faith." (Rom. iv. 11.) So far 
was it from being a mere pledge of the possession of Canaan, 
and the enjoyment of temporal prosperity there, that it rati 



INFANT BAPTISM. 9 

fied and sealed a covenant in which " all the families of the 
earth were to be blessed." And yet this covenant seal was 
solemnly appointed by God to be administered, and was 
actually administered, for nearly two thousand years, to in- 
fants of the tenderest age, in token of their relation to God's 
covenanted family, and of their right to the privileges of that 
covenant. Here then, is a fact, — a fact incapable of being 
disguised or denied, — nay, a fact acknowledged by all — on 
which the advocates of infant baptism may stand as upon an 
immoveable rock. For if infinite wisdom once saw that it 
was right and fit that infants should be made the subjects of 
" a seal of the righteousness of faith," before they were capa- 
ble of exercising faith, surely a transaction the same in sub- 
stance may be right and fit now. Baptism, which is, in like 
manner, a seal of the righteousness of faith, may, without 
impropriety, be applied equally early. What once, un- 
doubtedly, existed in the church, and that by divine ap- 
pointment, may exist still, without any impeachment of 
either the wisdom or benevolence of Him who appointed it. 
But, 

4. As the infant seed of the people of God are acknow- 
ledged on all hands to have been members of the church, 
equally with their parents under tho Old Testament dispen- 
sation, so it is equally certain that, the church of God is the 
same in substance now that it was then ; and, of course, it 
is just as reasonable and proper, on principle, that the infant 
offspring of professed believers should be members of the 
church now, as it was that they should be members of the 
ancient church. I am aware that our Baptist brethren 
warmly object to this statement, and assert that the church 
of God under the Old Testament economy and the New, is 
not the same, but so essentially different, that the same prin- 
ciples can by no means apply to each. They contend that 
the Old Testament dispensation was a kind of political eco- 
nomy, rather national than spiritual in its character ; and, of 
course, that when the Jews ceased to be a people, the cove- 
nant under which they had been placed, was altogether laid 
aside, and a covenant of an entirely new character introduced. 
But nothing can be more evident than that this view of the 
subject is entirely erroneous. The perpetuity of the Abra- 
hamic covenant, and, of consequence the identity of the 
church under both dispensations, is so plainly taught in 
Scripture, and follows so unavoidably from the radical scrip- 
tural principles concerning the church of God, that it is 
indeed wonderful how any believer in the Bible can call k» 
S 205 



10 INFANT BAPTISM. 

question the fact. Every thing essential to ecclesiastical 
identity is evidently found here. The same Divine Head ; 
the same precious covenant ; the same great spiritual design ; 
the same atoning blood ; the same sanctifying Spirit, in 
which we rejoice, as the life and the glory of the New Tes- 
tament church, we know, from the testimony of Scripture, 
were also the life and the glory of the church before the 
coming of the Messiah. It is not more certain that a man, 
arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was 
when an infant on his mother's lap, than it is that the 
church, in the plenitude of her light and privileges, after the 
coming of Christ, is the same church which, many centuries 
before, though with a much smaller amount of light and pri- 
vilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament, 
(Acts vii. 38,) enjoyed the presence and guidance of her 
Divine Head " in the wilderness." The truth is, the inspired 
apostle, in writing to the Galatians, (iv. 1 — 6,) formally com- 
pares the covenanted people of God, under the Old Testa- 
ment economy, to an heir under age. " Now I say, that 
the heir, as long as he is a child, diifereth nothing from a 
servant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and 
governors, until the time appointed of the father. Even so 
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the 
elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time 
was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that 
we might receive the adoption of sons." 

Hence, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, 
(iv. 2,) referring to the children of Israel, says — " Unto us 
was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them." Again in 
writing unto the Corinthians, (x. 1 — 4,) he declares, "They 
did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same 
spiritual drink ; for they drank it of that spiritual rock which 
followed them, and that rock was Christ." " Abraham," 
we are told, (John viii. 56,) "rejoiced to see Christ's day 
he saw it, and was glad." And, of the patriarchs generally, 
we are assured that they saw Gospel promises afar off, and 
embraced them. The church under the old economy, then, 
was not only a church — a true church — a divinely consti- 
tuted church — but it was a Gospel church, a church of Christ 
— a church built upon the " same foundation as that of the 



But what places the identity of the church, under both dis- 
pensations, in the clearest and strongest light, is that memo- 
rable and decisive passage, in the 11th chapter of the Epistle 



INFANT BAPTISM. 11 

to the Romans, in which the church of God is held forth to 
us under the emblem of an olive tree. Under the same 
figure had the Lord designated the church by the pen of Je- 
remiah the prophet, in the 11th chapter of his prophecy. 
The prophet speaking of God's covenanted people under 
that economy, says — "The Lord called thy name a green 
olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." But concerning this 
olive tree, on account of the sin of the people in forsaking 
the Lord, the prophet declares: "With the noise of a great 
tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of it 
are broken." Let me request you to compare with this, the 
language of the apostle in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to 
the Romans : " For if the casting away of them be the recon- 
ciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but 
life from the dead ? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump 
is also holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a 
wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them 
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not 
against the branches ; but if thou boast, thou bearest not the 
root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, the branches 
were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well, because 
of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. 
Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natu- 
ral branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, 
therefore, the goodness and severity of God ! on them which 
fell severity ; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in 
his goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be broken off'. 
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be 
grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if 
thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, 
and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree, 
how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, 
be grafted into their own olive tree?" 

That the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament 
church, under the figure of a good olive tree, cannot be 
doubted, and is, indeed, acknowledged by all; by our Bap- 
tist brethren as well as others. Now the inspired apostle 
says concerning this olive tree, that the natural branches, 
that is the Jews, were broken off because of unbelief. But 
what was the consequence of this excision ? Was the tree 
destroyed? By no means. The apostle teaches directly 
the contrary. It is evident, from his language, that the root 
and trunk, in all their "fatness," remained; and Gentiles, 
branches of an olive tree "wild by nature," were "grafted 

207 



12 INFANT BAPTISM. 

into the good olive tree ;" — the same tree from which the 
natural branches had been broken off. Can any thing be 
more pointedly descriptive of identity than mis ? But this 
is not all. The apostle apprizes us that the Jews are to be 
brought back from their rebellion and wanderings and to be 
incorporated with the Christian church. And how is this 
restoration described? It is called "grafting them in again 
into their own olive tree.''' In other words, the "tree" into 
which the Gentile Christians at the coming of Christ were 
"grafted," was the "old olive tree," of which the ancient 
covenant people of God were the "natural branches;" and, 
of course, when the Jews shall be brought in, with the ful- 
ness of the Gentiles, into the Christian church, the apostle 
expressly tells us they shall be "grafted again into their 
own olive tree." Surely, if the church of God before the 
coming of Christ, and the church of God after the advent, 
were altogether distinct and separate bodies, and not the 
same in their essential characters, it would be an abuse of 
terms to represent the Jews, when converted to Christianity, 
as grafted again into their own olive tree. 

5. Having seen that the infant seed of the professing peo- 
ple of God were members of the church under the Old Tes- 
tament economy; and having seen also that the church 
under that dispensation and the present is the same; we are 
evidently prepared to take another step, and to infer, that if 
infants were once members, and if the church remains the 
same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some posi- 
tive divine enactment excluding them, can be found. As it 
was a positive divine enactment which brought them in, and 
gave them a place in the church, so it is evident that a divine 
enactment as direct and positive, repealing u.*ur old privilege, 
and excluding them from the covenanted family, must be 
found, or they are still in the church. But can such an act 
of repeal and exclusion, I ask, be produced ? It cannot. It 
never has been, and it never can be. The introduction of 
infants into the church by divine appointment, is undoubted. 
The identity of the church, under both dispensations, is 
undoubted. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, in 
which not merely the lineal descendants of Abraham, but 
"«// the nations of the earth were to be blessed," is un- 
doubted. And we find no hint in the New Testament of 
the high privileges granted to the infant seed of believers 
being withdrawn. Only concede that it has not been for- 
mally withdrawn, and it remains of course. The advocates 
of infant baptism are not bound to produce from the New 
20* 



INFANT BAPTISM. 13 

Testament an express warrant for the membership of the 
children ot believers. The warrant was given most ex- 
pressly and formally, two thousand years before the New 
Testament was written ; and having never been revoked, 
remains firmly and indisputably in force. 

It is deeply to be lamented that our Baptist brethren can- 
not be prevailed upon to recognise the length and breadth, 
and bearing of this great ecclesiastical fact. Here were lit- 
tle children eight days old, acknowledged as members of a 
covenanted society — a society consecrated to God for spi- 
ritual as well as temporal benefits — and stamped with a cove- 
nant seal, by which they were formally bound, as the seed 
of believers, to be entirely and forever the Lord's. Can in- 
fant membership be ridiculed, as it often is, without lifting 
the puny arm against Him who was with "his church in 
the wilderness, and whose ways are all wise and right- 
eous?" 

6. Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the 
room of circumcision, and therefore, that the former is 
rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the 
latter. When we say this, we mean, not merely that cir- 
cumcision is laid aside in the church of Christ, and that 
baptism has been brought in, but that baptism occupies the 
same place, as the appointed initiatory ordinance in the 
church, and that, as a moral emblem, it means the same 
thing. The meaning and design of circumcision was 
chiefly spiritual. It was a seal of a covenant which had not 
solely, or even mainly, a respect to the possession of Ca- 
naan, and to the temporal promises which were connected 
with a residence in that land; but which chiefly regarded 
higher and more important blessings, even those which are 
conveyed through the Messiah, in whom "all the families 
of the earth" are to be blessed. So it is with baptism. 
While it marks an external relation, and seals outward 
privileges, it is, as circumcision was, a " seal of the right- 
eousness of faith," and has a primary reference to the bene- 
fits of the Messiah's mission and reign. Circumcision was a 
token of visible membership in the family of God, and of 
covenant obligation to him. So is baptism. Circumcision 
was the ordinance which marked, or publicly ratified, en- 
trance into that visible family. So does baptism. Cir- 
cumcision was an emblem of moral cleansing and purity. 
So is baptism. It refers to the remission of sins by the 
blood of Christ, and regeneration by his Spirit ; and teaches 
us that we are by nature guilty and depraved, and stand in 
s 2 209 



14 INFANT BAPTISM. 

need of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God by a 
crucified Redeemer. Surely, then, there is the best founda- 
tion for asserting that baptism has come in the place of cir- 
cumcision. The latter, as all grant, has been discontinued ; 
and now baptism occupies the same place, means the same 
thing, seals the same covenant, and is a pledge of the same 
spiritual blessings. Who can doubt, then, that there is the 
utmost propriety, upon principle, in applying it to the same 
infant subjects? 

Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of cir- 
cumcision, there are points in regard to which the former 
differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as 
to those points in regard to which the New Testament econ- 
omy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less 
ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the 
eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place. 
It is not confined to one sex ; but, like the glorious dispensa- 
tion of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and 
is administered in a way which reminds us that " there is nei- 
ther Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor 
female, in the Christian economy ; but that we are all one in 
Christ Jesus." 

7. Again ; it is a strong argument in favour of infant bap- 
tism, that we find the principle of family baptism again and 
again adopted in the apostolic age. We are told, by men 
learned in Jewish antiquities, that, under the Old Testament 
economy, it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism 
were gained from the surrounding nations, that all the chil- 
dren of a family were invariably admitted to membership in 
the church with their parents ; and on the faith of their 
parents ; that all the males, children and adults, were circum- 
cised, and the whole family, male and female, baptized, and 
incorporated with the community of God's covenanted peo- 
ple.* Accordingly, when we examine the New Testament 

* I consider the Jewish baptism of proselytes as a historical fact 
well established. I am aware that some Pedobaptists, whose judgment 
and learning I greatly respect, have expressed doubts in reference to 
this matter. But when I find the Jews asking John the Baptist, " Why 
baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ?" &c, I can only ac- 
count for their language by supposing that they had been accustomed 
to that rite, and expected the Messiah, when he came, to practice it. 
We have the best evidence that they baptized their proselytes as early 
as the second century ; and it is altogether incredible that they should 
copy it from the Christians. And a great majority of the most com- 
petent judges in this case, both Jewish and Christian, from Selden and 
Lightfoot down to Dr. Adam Clarke, have considered the testimony to 
the fact as abundant and conclusive. 
210 



INFANT BAPTISM. 15 

history, we find that under the ministry of the apostles, who 
were all native Jews, and had, of course, been long accus- 
tomed to this practice, the same principle of receiving and 
baptizing families on the faith of the parents, was most evi- 
dently adopted and acted upon in a very striking manner. 
When " the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended 
to the things which were spoken by Paul," w r e are told that 
"she was baptized and her household." When the jailor at 
Philippi believed, " he was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
way." Thus also we read of " the household of Stephanas" 
being baptized. Now, though we are not certain that there 
were young children in any of these families, it is highly 
probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of 
family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of 
households on the faith of their domestic head, seems to be 
plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on 
which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwa- 
vering confidence. 

And here let me ask, was it ever known that a case of 
family baptism occurred under the direction of a Baptist min- 
ister ? Was it ever known to be recorded, or to have hap- 
pened, that when, under the influence of Baptist ministra- 
tions, the parents of large families were hopefully converted, 
they were baptized, they and all their' s straightway? There 
is no risk in asserting that such a case was never heard of. 
And why ? Evidently, because our Baptist brethren do not 
act in this matter upon the principles laid down in the New 
Testament, and which regulated the primitive Christians. 

8. Another consideration possesses much weight here. 
We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant 
membership, to which all the first Christians had been so 
long accustomed, could have been abruptly withdrawn, ivith- 
out wounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them 
feelings of revolt and complaint against the new economy. 
Yet we find no hint of this recorded in the history of the 
apostolic age. Upon our principles, this entire silence pre- 
sents no difficulty. The old principle and practice of infant 
membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all 
the feelings of parental affection, went on as before. The 
identity of the church under the new dispensation with that 
of the old, being well understood, the early Christians need- 
ed no new warrant for the inclusion of their infant seed in 
the covenanted family. As the privilege had not been re- 
voked, it, of course, continued. A new and formal enact-, 
ment in favour of the privilege would have been altogether 

211 



16 INFANT BAPTISM. 

superfluous, not to say out of place ; especially as it was well 
understood, from the whole aspect of the new economy, that, 
instead of withdrawing or narrowing the privileges, its wh^le 
character was that it rather multiplied and extended them. 

But our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of sup 
posing, that such of the first Christians as had been Jews. 
and who had ever been in the habit of considering their be- 
loved offspring as included, with themselves, in the privileges 
and promises of God's covenant, were given to understand, 
when the New Testament church was set up, that these 
covenant privileges and promises were no longer to be enjoy- 
ed by their children ; that they were, henceforth, to be no 
more connected with the church than the children of the sur- 
rounding heathen ; and this under an economy distinguished, 
in every other respect, by greater light, and more enlarged 
privilege : — I say, our Baptist brethren are under the neces- 
sity of supposing that the first Christians were met on the 
organization of the New Testament church, with an an- 
nouncement of this kind, and that they acquiesced in it with- 
out a feeling of surprise, or a word of" murmur ! Nay, that 
this whole retrograde change passed with so little feeling of 
interest, that it was never so much as mentioned or hinted at 
in any of the epistles to the churches. But can this suppo- 
sition be for a moment admitted? It is impossible. We may 
conclude, then, that the acknowledged silence of the New 
Testament as to any retraction of the old privileges, or any 
complaint of its recall, is so far from warranting a conclusion 
unfavourable to the church membership of infants, that it 
furnishes a weighty argument of an import directly the re- 
verse. 

9. Although the New Testament does not contain any 
specific texts, which, in so many words, declare that the in- 
fant seed of believers are members of the church in virtue of 
their birth ; yet it abounds in passages which cannot reason- 
ably be explained but in harmony with this doctrine. The 
following are a specimen of the passages to which I refer. 

The prophet Isaiah, though not a New Testament writer, 
speaks much, and in the most interesting manner, of the New 
Testament times. Speaking of the " latter day glory," of 
that day when " the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, 
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and when there 
shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God's holy moun- 
tain ;" speaking of that day, the inspired prophet declares, 
" Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the 
former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. F 
212 



INFANT BAPTISM. 17 

as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine 
elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall 
not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are 
the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with 
them." Isaiah lxv. 17, 22, 23. 

The language of our Lord concerning little children can be 
reconciled with no other doctrine than that which I am now 
endeavouring to establish, " Then were there brought unto 
him little children, that he should put his hands on them and 
pray ; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, 
" Suffer little children to come uuto me, and forbid them not, 
for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands 
upon them, and departed thence." Matt. xix. 13 — 15. On 
examining the language used by the several Evangelists in 
regard to this occurrence, it is evident that the children here 
spoken of were young children, infants, such as the Saviour 
could " take in his arms." The language which our Lord 
himself employs concerning them is remarkable. "Of such 
is the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven, or, to them belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is 
precisely the same form of expression, in the original, which 
our Lord uses in the commencement of his sermon on the 
mount, when he says, " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for 
theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" " Blessed are they that are 
persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven." This form of expression, of course, precludes 
the construction which some have been disposed to put on 
the passage, in order to evade its force, viz. that it implies, 
that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as resemble 
little children in spirit. We might just as well say, that the 
kingdom of heaven does not belong to those who are " poor 
in spirit," but only to those who resemble them ; or, that it 
does not belong to those who are " persecuted for righteous- 
ness sake," but only to those who manifest a similar temper. 
Our Lord's language undoubtedly meant that the kingdom of 
heaven was really theirs of whom he spake ; that it belonged 
to them ; that they are the heirs of it, just as the "poor in 
spirit," and the " persecuted for righteousness sake," are 
themselves connected in spirit and in promise with that king- 
dom. 

But what are we to understand by the phrase " the king- 
dom of heaven," as employed in this place ? Most mani- 
festly, we are to understand by it, the visible Church, or the 
visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished both from the 
world, and the old economy. Let any one impartially ex- 

213 



18 INFANT BAPTISM. 

amine the Evangelists throughout, and he will find this to bt 
the general import of the phrase in question. If this be the 
meaning, then our Saviour asserts, in the most direct and 
pointed terms, the reality and the Divine warrant of infant 
church membership. But even if the kingdom of glory be 
intended, still our argument is not weakened, but rather for- 
tified. For if the kingdom of glory belong to the infant seed 
of believers, much more have they a title to the privileges of 
the church on earth. 

Another passage of Scripture strongly speaks the same 
language. I refer to the declaration which we find in the 
sermon of the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost. — 
When a large number of the hearers, on that solemn day, 
were " pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the 
rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do V* 
The reply of the inspired minister of Christ was, " Repent, 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to 
your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as 
the Lord our God shall call." The apostle is here evidently 
speaking of the promise of God to his covenant people ; 
that promise in which he engages to be their God, and to 
constitute them his covenanted family. Now this promise, 
he declared to those whom he addressed, extended to their 
children as well as to themselves, and, of course, gave those 
children a covenant right to the privileges of the family. But 
if they have a covenant title to a place in this family, we 
need no formal argument to show that they are entitled to the 
outward token and seal of that family. 

I shall adduce only one more passage of Scripture, at pre- 
sent, in support of the doctrine for which I contend. I refer 
to that remarkable, and, as it appears to me, conclusive dec- 
laration of the apostle Paul, concerning children, which is 
found in the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, in reply to a query addressed to him by the mem- 
bers of that church respecting the Christian law of marriage: 
" The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife ; and the 
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your 
children unclean, but now are they holy." The great ques- 
tion in relation to this passage is, in what sense does a believ- 
ing parent " sanctify" an unbelieving one, so that their chil- 
dren are " holy ?" It certainly cannot mean, that every pious 
husband or wife that is allied to an unbelieving partner, is 
always instrumental in conferring on that partner true spiritual 
214 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1 V J 

purity, or, in other words, regeneration and sanctitication of 
heart ; nor that every child born of parents of whom one is 
a believer, is, of course the subject of gospel holiness, or of 
internal sanctitication. No one who intelligently reads the 
Bible, or who has eyes to see what daily passes around him, 
can possibly put such a construction on the passage. Neither 
can it be understood to mean, as some have strangely imagin- 
ed, that where one of the parents is a believer, the children 
are legitimate ; that is, the offspring of parents, one of whom 
is pious, are no longer bastards, but are to be considered as 
begotten in lawful wedlock! The word "holy" is no where 
applied in Scripture to legitimacy of birth. The advocates 
of this construction may be challenged to produce a single 
example of such an application of the term. And as to the 
suggestion of piety in one party being necessary to render a 
marriage covenant valid, nothing can be more absurd. Were 
the marriages of the heathen in the days of Paul all illicit 
connexions ? Are the matrimonial contracts which take place 
every day, among us, where neither of the parties are pious, 
all illegitimate and invalid ? Surely it is not easy to conceive 
of a subterfuge more completely preposterous, or more adapt- 
ed to discredit a cause which finds it necessary to resort to 
such aid. 

The terms " holy" and unclean," as is well known to all 
attentive readers of Scripture, have not only a spiritual, but 
also an ecclesiastical sense in the word of God. While in 
some cases, they express that which is internally and spiritu- 
ally conformed "to the divine image ; in others, they quite as 
plainly designate something set apart to a holy or sacred use ; 
that is, separated from a common or profane, to a holy pur- 
pose. Thus, under the Old Testament economy, the pecu- 
liar people of God, are said to be a." holy people," and to 
be " severed from all other people, that they might be the 
Lord's ;" not because they were all, or even a majority of 
them, really consecrated in heart to God ; but because they 
were all his professing people, — his covenanted people ; they 
all belonged to that external body which he had called out of 
the world, and established as the depository of his truth, and 
the conservator of his glory. In these two senses, the terms 
"holy" and "unclean" are used in both Testaments, times 
almost innumerable. And what their meaning is, in any par- 
ticular case, must be gathered from the scope of the passage. 
In the case before us, the latter of these two senses is evi- 
dently required by the whole spirit of the apostle's leasoning. 

It appears that among the Corinthians, to whom the apos- 



20 INFANT BAPTISM. 

tie wrote, there were many cases of professing Christians 
being united by the marriage tie with pagans ; the former, 
perhaps, being converted after marriage ; or being so unwise, 
as, after conversion, deliberately to form this unequal and 
unhappy connexion. What was to be deemed of such mar- 
riages, seems to have been the grave question submitted to 
this inspired teacher. He pronounces, under the direction of 
the Holy Spirit, that, in all such cases, when the unbeliever 
is willing to live with the believer, they ought to continue to 
live together, that their connexion is so sanctified by the cha- 
racter of the believing companion, that their children are 
" holy," that is, in covenant with God ; members of that 
church with which the believing parent is, in virtue of his 
profession, united : in one word, that the infidel party is so 
far, and in such a sense, consecrated by the believing party, 
that their children shall be reckoned to belong to the sacred 
family with which the latter is connected, and shall be regard- 
ed and treated as members of the Church of God.* 

" The passage thus explained," says an able writer, " es- 
tablishes the church membership of infants in another form. 
For it assumes the principle, that when both parents are re- 
puted believers, their children belong to the Church of God 
as a matter of course. The whole difficulty proposed by the 
Corinthians to Paul, grows out of this principle. Had he 
taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents 
believers or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the 
church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the 
faith of both parents could not confer upon the child the pri- 
vilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly 
could not. The point was decided. It would have been 
mere impertinence to teaze the apostle with queries which 
carried their own answers along with them. But on the sup- 
position that when both parents were members, their children 
were also members ; the difficulty is very natural and serious. 
" I see," would a Corinthian convert exclaim, " I see the 
children of my Christian neighbours, owned as members ot 
the Church of God ; and I see the children of others, who 
are unbelievers rejected with themselves. 1 believe in Christ 
myself; but my husband, my wife, believes not. What is to 
become of my children ? Are they to be admitted with my- 
self ? Or are they to be cast off with my partner ?" 

* It is worthy of notice that this interpretation of the passage is 
adopted, and decisively maintained by .Augustine, one of the most 
pious and learned divines of the fourth century. De Sermone Domini 
in Monte, ch. 27. 
216 



INFANT BAPTISM. 21 

" Let not your heart be troubled," replies the apostle, 
" God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving 
parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity of 
your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant 
of your God. They are holy because you are so." 

" This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us 
know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the 
doubt, whether a married person should continue, after con- 
version, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner, arose 
from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children 
from the church of God. Otherwise, it is hard to compre- 
hend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating 
by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And 
it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have enter- 
ed their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of 
believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high priv- 
ilege, so high a privilege, that the apprehension of losing it, 
made conscientious parents at a stand whether they ought 
not rather to -break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from 
an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus the origin of this 
difficulty, on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the 
other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that by the ap- 
pointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents 
are born members of his church."* 

10. Finally ; the history of the Christian Church from 
the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force 
in favour of the divine authority of infant baptism. 

I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candour and 
confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, 
for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, 
there was not a single society of professing Christians on 
earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the 
grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It 
is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical 
history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Ger- 
many, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people, 
in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism ol 
infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipcedobap- 
tist body. This, I am aware, will be regarded as an unten- 
able position by some of the ardent friends of the Baptist 
cause ; but nothing can be more certain than that it is even 

* Essays on the Church of God, by Dr. J. M. Mason. Christian 1 8 
Magazine, ii. 49, 50. 

T 217 



22 INFANT BAPTISM. 

so. Of this a short induction of particulars will afford con 
elusive evidence. 

Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of 
Christ, is the iirst man of whom we read in ecclesiastical 
history, as speaking a word against infant baptism ; and he, 
while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the prac- 
tice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if 
they are not likely to survive the period of infancy ; yet ad- 
vises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism 
be delayed until a late period in life. But what was the 
reason of this advice ? The moment we look at the reason, 
we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which 
it is sometimes produced. Tertullian adopted the supersti- 
tious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission 
of all past sins ; and that sins committed after baptism were 
peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised, that not merely 
infants, but young men and young women ; and even young 
widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until 
the period of youthful appetite and passion should have pass- 
ed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death 
was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed, until the 
subjects of it should have arrived at a period of life, when 
they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by 
youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the 
age of Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous con- 
verts to the Christian faith, postponing baptism till the close 
of life. Constantine the Great, we are told, though a pro- 
fessing Christian for many years before, was not baptized till 
after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is 
recorded of a number of other distinguished converts to Chris- 
tianity, about and after that time. But, surely, advice and 
facts of this kind make nothing in favour of the system of 
our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their histori- 
cal bearing is strongly in favour of our system. 

The next persons that we hear of as calling in question 
the propriety of infant baptism, were the small body of peo- 
ple in France, about twelve hundred years after Christ, who 
followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an inconsider- 
able section of the people known in ecclesiastical history 
under the general name of the TValdenses. This body main- 
tained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were 
incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be 
saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long 
course of self-denial and labour. And as infants were inca- 
pable of thus " working out their own salvation," they held 
218 



INFANT BAPTISM. 23 

that making them the subjects of a sacramental seal, was an 
absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot be willing 
to consider these people as their predecessors, or to adopt 
their creed. 

We hear no more of any society or organized body of 
Intipcedobaptisls, until the sixteenth century, when they 
irose, as before stated, in Germany, and for the first time 
broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethren. As 
far as I have been able to discover, they were absolutely un- 
known in the whole Christian world, before that time. 

But we have something more than mere negative testimony 
on this subject. It is not only certain, that we hear of no 
society of Jlntipcedobaptists resembling our present Baptis* 
brethren, for more than fifteen hundred years after Christ ; 
but we have positive and direct proof that, during the whole 
of that time, infant baptism was the general and unopposed 
practice of the Christian Church. 

To say nothing of earlier intimations, wholly irreconcile 
able with any other practice than that of infant baptism, 
Origen, a Greek father of the third century, and decidedly 
the most learned man of his day, speaks in the most unequiv- 
ocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice 
of the church in his time, and as having been received from 
the Apostles. His testimony is as follows — " According to 
the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants ; 
when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgive- 
ness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be su- 
perfluous." (Homil. VIII. in Levit. ch. 12.) Again ; " In- 
fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? 
Or, when have they sinned ? Or, can there be any reason 
for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense 
which we have mentioned above, viz : that no one is free 
from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth ? 
And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, there- 
fore infants are baptized." (Homil. in Luc. 14.) Again : 
" For this cause it was that the church received an order from 
the Apostles to give baptism even to infants."* 

The testimony of Cyprian, a Latin Father of the third 
century, contemporary with Origen, is no less decisive. It 
is as follows : 

In the year 253 after Christ, there was a Council of sixty- 
six bishops or pastors held at Carthage, in which Cyprian 
presided. To this Council, Fidics, a country pastor, pre- 

* Comment, in Epist. ad Romanos. Lib. />. Q _ Q 



24 INFANT BAPTISM. 

sented the following question, which he wished them, by 
their united wisdom, to solve — viz. Whether it was neces- 
sary, in the administration of baptism, as of circumcision, to 
wait until the eighth day ; or whether a child might be bap- 
tized at an earlier period after its birth ? The question, it 
will be observed, was not whether infants ought to be bapti- 
zed ? That was taken for granted. But simply, whether it 
was necessary to wait until the eighth day after their birth 1 
The Council came unanimously to the following decision, 
and transmitted it in a letter to the inquirer. 

" Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present 
in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, 
greeting : 

" As to the case of Infants, — whereas you judge that they 
must not be baptized within two or three days after they are 
born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that 
no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day 
after he is born ; we were all in the Council of a very dif- 
ferent opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, 
no one was of your mind; but we all rather judged that the 
mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being 
that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion 
in the Council ; that we ought not to hinder any person from 
baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to 
us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more es- 
pecially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those 
newly bora." (Cyprian, Epist. 66.) 

Surely no testimony can be more unexceptionable and de- 
cisive than this. Lord Chancellor King, in his account oi 
the primitive church, after quoting what is given above, and 
much more, subjoins the following remark — " Here, then is 
a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as 
can possibly be expected ; which being the judgment of a 
synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private 
father ; it being supposable that a private father might write 
his own particular judgment and opinion only ; but the de- 
termination of a synod (and he might have added, the unani- 
mous determination of a synod of sixty-six members) de- 
notes the common practice and usage of the whole church."* 

The Famous Chrysosto?n, a Greek father, who flourished 
towards the close of the fourth century, having had occasion 
to speak of circumcision, and of the inconvenience and pain 
which attended its dispensation, proceeds to say — " But our 



220 



* Inquiry into the Constitution, &c. Part II. Chap. 3. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 25 

circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure with- 
out pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us 
with the grace of the Spirit ; and it has no determinate time, 
as that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, 
or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, 
mai' receive this circumcision made without hands ; in which 
there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load 
of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences." (Ho- 
mil. 40. in Gene sin.) 

Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous 
writers of the third and fourth centuries, in support of the 
fact, that infant baptism was generally practised when they 
wrote, I shall detain you with only one testimony more in re- 
lation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augus- 
tine, one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers of 
the Christian Church, who lived a little more than thrc* 
hundred years after the Apostles, — taken in connexion with 
that of Pelagius, the learned heretic, who lived at the samr 
time. Auo-ustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in fa 
vour of the doctrine of original sin. In the course of this 
plea, he asks — " Why are infants baptized for the remission 
of sins, if they have no sin?" At the same time intimating 
to Pelagius, that if he would be consistent with himself, his 
denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant 
baptism. The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal. 
" Baptism," says he, " ought to be administered to infants, 
with the same sacramental words which are used in the case 
of adult persons." — " Men slander me as if I denied the sac- 
rament of baptism to infants." — " I never heard of any, not 
even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to in- 
fants; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants from 
being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them 
miss of the kingdom of God ?" Again : Augustine remarks, 
in reference to the Pelagians — " Since they grant that infants 
must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of 
the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord 
and his Apostles; they must consequently grant that they 
stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being 
offered by the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful, 
and so being incorporated into Christ's body, they may be 
reconciled to God," &c. Again, speaking of certain heretics 
at Carthage, who, though they acknowledged infant baptism, 
took wrong views of its meaning, Augustine remarks — "They, 
minding the Scriptures, and the authority of the whole 
church, and the form of the sacrament itself, see well that 
t2 221 



26 INFANT BAPTISM. 

baptism in infants is for the remission of sins." Further, in 
his work against the Donatists, the same writer speaking of 
baptized infants obtaining salvation without the personal ex- 
ercise of faith, he says — " which the whole body of the 
church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants 
baptized ; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto 
righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation, nay, 
by their crying and noise while the sacrament is administer- 
ing, they disturb the holy mysteries : and yet no Christian 
man will say that they are baptized to no purpose." Again, 
he says — " The custom of our mother the church in bapti- 
zing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted need- 
less, nor believed to be any thing else than an ordinance de- 
livered to us from the Jlpostlcs." In short, those who will 
be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from the writings 
of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned 
fVcdVs history of Infant Baptism, will find that venerable 
father declaring again and again that he never met with any 
Christian, either of the general church, or of any of the sects, 
nor with any writer, who owned the authority of Scripture, 
who taught any other doctrine than that infants were to be 
baptized for the remission of sin. Here, then, were two 
men, undoubtedly among the most learned then in the world 
— Augustine and Pelagius ; the former as familiar probably 
with the writings of all the distinguished fathers who had 
gone before him, as any man of his time ; the latter also a 
man of great learning and talents, who had travelled over the 
greater part of the Christian world ; who both declare, about 
three hundred years after the apostolic age, that they never 
saw or heard of any one who called himself a Christian, not 
even the most impious heretic, no nor any writer who claim- 
ed to believe in the Scriptures, who denied the baptism of 
infants. (See Wall's History, Part I. ch. 15 — 19.) Can the 
most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the fetters 
of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that these men 
verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal prac- 
tice of the church from the days of the Apostles ; and, 
secondly, that, situated and informed as they were, it was im- 
possible that they should be mistaken. 

The same Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface, while he 
expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons 
to offer up their children to God in baptism, if they be good 
faithful Christians ; yet thinks proper to mention that others 
.nay, with propriety, in special cases, perform the same kind 
office of Christian charity. " You see," says he, " that a 
222 



INFANT BAPTISM. 27 

great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other 
persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their mas- 
ters. And sometimes when the parents are dead, the infants 
are baptized, being offered by any that can afford to show 
this compassion on them. And sometimes infants whom 
their parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and 
offered in baptism by those who have no children of their 
own, nor design to have any." Again, in his book against 
the Donatists, speaking direcdy of infant baptism, he says — 
" If any one ask for divine authority in this matter, although 
that which the whole church practises, which was not insti- 
tuted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably 
believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority 
of the Apostles ; yet we may besides take a true estimate, 
how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the 
circumcision which God's ancient people received. For 
Abraham was justified before he received circumcision, as 
Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was 
baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he re- 
ceived the sign of circumcision, ' a seal of the righteousness 
of faith,' by which he had in heart believed, and it had been 
* counted to him for righteousness.' Why then was he 
commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth 
day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it 
might be counted to them for righteousness ; but for this 
reason, because the sacrament is, in itself of great impor- 
tance? Therefore, as in Abraham, 'the righteousness of 
faith' went before, and circumcision, * the seal of the right- 
eousness of faith came after ;' so in Cornelius, the spiritual 
sanctification by the gift of the Holy -Spirit went before, and 
the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of baptism, came 
after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, 
the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he 
was a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness itself, 
the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after ; 
so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes 
before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) con- 
version of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in 
their body, comes after. By all which it appears, that the 
sacrament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the 
heart another." 

So much for the testimony of the Fathers. To me, I 
acknowledge, this testimony carries with it irresistible con- 
viction. It is, no doubt, conceivable, considered in itself, that 
in three centuries from the days of the apostles, a very mate- 

223 



28 INFANT BAPTISM. 

rial change might have taken place in regard to the subjects 
of baptism. But that a change so serious and radical as that 
of which our Baptist brethren speak, should have been intro- 
duced without the knowledge of such men as have been just 
quoted, is not conceivable. That the church should have 
passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that 
of the constant and universal baptism of infants, while such 
a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the 
most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that 
period, cannot, I must believe, be imagined by any impartial 
mind. Now when Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, de- 
clare, not only that the baptism of infants was the universal 
and unopposed practice of the church in their respective 
times and places of residence ; and when men of so much 
acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much 
knowledge of all Christendom, as Augustine and Pelagius, 
declared that they never heard of any one who claimed to 
be a Christian, either orthodox or heretic, who did not 
maintain and practice infant baptism; I say, to suppose, 
in the face of such testimony, that the practice of infant bap- 
tism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation, between their 
time and that of the apostles, without the smallest notice of 
the change having ever reached their ears is, I must be al- 
lowed to say, of all incredible suppositions, one of the most 
incredible. He who car believe this, must, it appears to 
me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence 
at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice. 

It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those 
pious and far famed witnesses for the truth, commonly 
known by the name of the fValdenses, did undoubtedly hold 
the doctrine of infant baptism, and practise accordingly. In 
their Confessions of Faith and other writings, drawn up be- 
tween the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they 
represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father 
to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they 
speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, 
as to preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The 
following specimen of their language will satisfy every rea- 
sonable inquirer. 

" Baptism," say they, is administered in a full congrega- 
tion of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into 
the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian 
brother, and that all the congregation may pray for him that 
he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed 
to be a Christian. Jind for this cause it is that we present 
224 J * 



INFANT BAPTISM. 29 

our children in baptism, which ought to be done by those to 
whom the children are most nearly related, such as their 
parents, or those to whom God has given this charity." 

Again; referring to the superstitious additions to baptism 
which the Papists had introduced, they say, in one of their 
ecclesiastical documents, — " The things which are not ne- 
cessary in baptism are, the exorcisms, the breathings, the 
sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the 
salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils, 
the unction of the breast, &c. From these things many 
take an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of 
edifying and salvation." 

Understanding that their Popish neighbours charged them 
with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit themselves 
of this imputation as follows : 

" Neither is the time nor place appointed for those who 
are to be baptized. But charity and the edification of the 
church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. 

" Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to be bap- 
tized; which they ought to do to whom they are most near- 
ly related ; such as their parents, or those whom God hath 
inspired with such a charily." 

" True it is," adds the historian, " that being, for sOme 
hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be 
baptized by the Romish priests, they deferred the perfor- 
mance of it as long as possible, because they detested the 
human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy sa- 
crament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of 
it. And by reason of their pastors, whom they called Bar- 
bes, being often abroad travelling in the service of the 
church, they could not have baptism administered to their 
children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them 
long without it. On account of which delay, the priests 
have charged them with that reproach. To which charge 
not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many 
of those who have approved of their lives and faith in all 
other respects."* 

* See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the 
Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland's do.; and also Le- 
ger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, 
a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two vol- 
umes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order 
of these pious witnesses of the truth ; but, so far as I have observed, 
carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other docu- 
ments, every thing which would disclose their Pcedobaptist principles 
and practise ! On this artifice comment is unnecessary. 

225 



30 INFANT BAPTISM. 

It being so plainly a fact, established by their own un- 
equivocal and repeated testimony, that the great body of the 
vValdenses were Poedobaptists, on what ground is it that our 
Baptist brethren assert, and that some have been found to 
credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the 
truth rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy 
and ample. A small section of the people bearing the gene- 
ral name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de Bruis, who 
were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed 
with the mass of their denomination in most other matters, 
differed from them in regard to the subject of infant baptism. 
They held, as before stated, that infants were not capable of 
salvation ; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that 
none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of 
rigorous self-denial and labour in its pursuit. Those who 
die in infancy not being capable of this, the Petrobrussians 
held that they were not capable of salvation ; and, this being 
the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, how- 
ever, is not the doctrine of our Baptist brethren ; and, of 
course, furnishes no support to their creed or practice. But 
the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a very 
small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not 
more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The 
great mass of the denomination, however, as such, declare, in 
their Confessions of Faith, and in various public documents, 
that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many 
generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petro- 
brussians, in this respect, forsook the doctrine and practice 
of their fathers, and departed from the proper and established 
Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest records 
of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact. In short 
the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following 
representation. Suppose it were alleged that the Baptists in 
the United States are in the habit of keeping the seventh day 
of the week as their Sabbath? Would the statement be 
true ? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of 
the Antipcedobaptist body in the United States, usually sty- 
led " Seventh day Baptists" — probably not a thirtieth part of 
the whole body — who observe Saturday in each week as 
their Sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper repre- 
sentation, no doubt is, — (the only representation that a faith- 
ful historian of facts would pronounce correct) — that the 
Baptists in this country, as a general body, observe " the 
Lord's day" as their Sabbath. You may rest assured, my 
friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real 
226 



INFANT BAF1IS31. 31 

fact with regard to the Waldenses as Posdobaptists. Twenty- 
nine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body 
of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Poedobaptists. 
The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their 
fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles alto- 
gether unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren. 

I have only one fact more to state in referenee to the 
pious Waldenses, and that is, that soon after the opening of 
the Reformation by Luther, they sought intercourse with 
the Reformed churches of Geneva and France ; held commu- 
nion with them ; received ministers from them ; and appear- 
ed eager to testify their respect and affection for them as 
" brethren in the Lord." Now it is well known that the 
churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the 
habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient 
to prove that the Waldenses were Poedobaptists. If they 
had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid 
the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such 
intercourse would have been wholly out of the question. 

If these historical statements be correct, and that they are 
so, is just as well attested as any facts whatever in the annals 
of the church, the amount of the whole is conclusive, is de- 
monstrative, that, for fifteen hundred years after Christ, the 
practice of infant baptism was universal ; that to this general 
fact there was absolutely no exception, in the whole Chris- 
tian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can coun- 
tenance in the least degree, modern Anti-poedobaptism ; that 
from the time of the Apostles to the time of Luther, the gene- 
ral, unopposed, established practice of the church was to re- 
gard the infant seed of believers as members of the church, 
and, as such, to baptize them. 

But this is not all. If the doctrine of our Baptist brethren 
be correct ; that is, if infant baptism be a corruption and a 
nullity ; then it follows, from the foregoing histoiical state- 
ments, most inevitably, that the ordinance of baptism was lost 
for fifteen hundred years : yes, entirely lost, from the apos- 
tolic age till the sixteenth century. For there was manifestly, 
" no society, during that long period, of fifteen centuries, but 
what was in the habit of baptizing infants." God had no 
church, then, in the world for so long a period ! Can this 
be admitted ? Surely not by any one who believes in the 
perpetuity and indestructibility of the household of faith. 

Nay, if the principle of our Baptist brethren be correct, 
the ordinance of baptism is irrecoverably lost altogether ; 
that is, irrecoverably without a miracle. Because if, during 



32 INFANT BAPTISM. 

the long tract of time that his been mentioned, there was no 
true baptism in the church ; and if none but baptized persons 
were capable of administering true baptism to others ? the 
consequence is plain; there is no true baptism now in the 
world ! But can this be believed ? Can we imagine that the 
great Head of the Church would permit one of his own pre- 
cious ordinances to be banished entirely from the church for 
many centuries, much less to be totally lost ? Surely the 
thought is abhorrent to every Christian feeling. 

Such is an epitome of the direct evidence in favour of in 
fant baptism. To me, I acknowledge, it appears nothing 
short of demonstration. The invariable character of all Je- 
hovah's dealings and covenants with the children of men ; 
his express appointment, acted upon for two thousand years 
by the ancient church ; the total silence of the New Testa- 
ment as to any retraction or repeal of this privilege ; the evi- 
dent and repeated examples of family baptism in the apostolic 
age ; the indubitable testimony of the practice of the whole 
church on the Pcedobaptist plan, from the time of the apos- 
tles to the sixteenth century, including the most respectable 
witnesses for the truth in the dark ages ; all conspire to es- 
tablish on the firmest foundation, the membership, and the 
consequent right to baptism of the infant seed of believers. 
If here be no divine warrant, we may despair of finding it 
for any institution in the Church of God. 



DISCOURSE II. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

"And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say 
ing — if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine 
house, and abide there." — Act? xvi. 15. 

Having adduced, in the preceding discourse, the direct 
evidence in support of Infant Baptism, let us now attend to 
some of the most common and popular objections, brought 
by our Baptist brethren, against the doctrine which we have 
attempted to establish. And, 

1. The first is, that we have no direct warrant in the New 
Testament, in so many words, for Infant Baptism. " We 
are no where," say our opponents, " in the history of the 
228 



INFANT BAPTISM. 33 

apostolic age, told, in express terms, either that infants ought 
to be baptized, or that they were, in fact, baptized. Now is 
it possible to account for this omission on the supposition that 
such baptism was generally practised?" This objection has 
been urged a thousand times, with great confidence, and with 
no inconsiderable effect, on the minds of soms serious persons 
of small knowledge, and of superficial thought. But when 
thoroughly examined, it will, I am persuaded, appear desti- 
tute of all solid foundation. 

For, in the first place, even if it were as our Baptist breth 
ren suppose ; that is, even if no express warrant, in so many 
words, were found in the New Testament, authorizing and 
directing infant baptism, could this reasonably be considered, 
upon Poedobaptist principles, unaccountable, or even wonder- 
ful ? The Pcedobaptist principle, let it be borne in mind, is, 
that the church under the New Testament economy is the 
same with the church under the Old Testament dispensation ; 
that the former was the minority or childhood, the latter the 
maturity of the visible kingdom of the Messiah ; that one of 
the most striking features in the New Testament character of 
this kingdom is, a great increase of light, and enlargement of 
privilege ; that the infant seed of believers had been born in 
covenant with God, and their covenanted character marked 
and ratified by a covenant seal, for two thousand years before 
Christ appeared ; and that, if this privilege had been inten- 
ded simply to be continued, no new enactment was necessary 
to ascertain this intention, but merely allowing it to proceed 
without interposing any change. This is the ground we take. 
Now, taking this ground ; assuming as facts what have been 
just stated as such, can any thing be more perfectly natura: 
than the whole aspect of the New Testament in relation to 
this subject? Very little, explicit or formal, is said in refer- 
ence to the covenant standing of children, on the opening of 
the new economy, simply because no material alteration as to 
this point, was intended. All the first Christians having been 
bred under the Jewish economy, and having been always ac- 
customed to the enjoyment of its privileges, would, of course, 
expect those privileges to be continued, especially, if nothing 
were said about their repeal or abridgement. To announce 
to these Jewish believers, that the covenant standing, and 
covenant advantages of their beloved children, were not to be 
withdrawn or curtailed, if no other alteration in reference to 
this matter, than an increase of privilege were intended, would 
have been just as unnecessary as to inform them that the true 
God was still to be worshipped, and the atoning sacrifice of 



34 INFANT BAPTISM. 

the Messiah still regarded as the only ground of hope. In 
short, assuming Pcedobaptist principles, we might expect the 
New Testament to exhibit precisely the aspect which it does 
exhibit. Not to say, in so many words, that the privilege in 
question was to be continued ; but all along to speak as if 
this were to be taken for granted, without an explicit enact- 
ment ; to assure the first Christians that "the promise was 
still to them and their children;" and not to them only, but 
also to " as many as the Lord their God should call" into his 
visible church ; to tell them that, in regard to this matter, the 
administration of his New Testament kingdom was to be 
such as to abolish all distinction of sex in Christian privilege ; 
that, in Christ, there was to be no longer a difference made 
between " male and female ;" and, in conformity with this 
intimation, and as practical comment upon it, to introduce 
whole families with the converted parents into the church, 
by the appropriate New Testament rite, as had been invaria- 
bly practised under the Old Testament economy. 

But now turn, for a moment, to the opposite supposition ; 
to that of our Baptist brethren. They are obliged, by their 
system, to take for granted, that, after the children of the. 
professing people of God had been, for nearly two thousand 
years, in the enjoyment of an important covenant privilege; 
a privilege precious in itself, and peculiarly dear to the pa- 
rental heart ; it was suddenly, and without explanation, set 
aside : that on the opening of the New Testament dispensa- 
tion, a dispensation of larger promises, and of increased 
liberality, this privilege was abruptly and totally withdrawn ; 
that children were ejected from their former covenant rela- 
tion ; that they were no longer the subjects of a covenant 
seal, or of covenant promises; and that all this took place 
without one hint of any reason for it being given ; without 
one syllable being said, in all the numerous epistles to the 
churches, by any one of justification or apology, for so im- 
portant a change ! Nay, that, instead of such notice and 
explanation, a mode of expression, under the new economy, 
should be throughout used, corresponding with the former 
practice, and adapted still to convey the idea that both pa- 
rents and children stood in their old relation, notwithstanding 
the painful change ! Is this credible ! Can it be believed 
by any one who is not predetermined to regard it as true ? 

But if the New Testament economy does not include the 

church membership of the infant seed of believers, such a 

change, undoubtedly, did take place, on the coming in of 

the new economy. The Jewish disciples of Christ saw 

230 



INFANT BAPTISM. 35 

their children at once cnt off from the covenant of promise, 
and denied its appropriate seal, to which they had always 
been accustomed, and in which the tenderest parental feel- 
ings were so strongly implicated. Yet we hear of no com- 
plaint on their part. We rind not a word which seems in- 
tended to explain such a change, or to allay the feelings of 
those parents who could not fail, if such had been the fact, 
both to feel and to remonstrate. 

I must say, my friends, that, to my mind, this considera- 
tion, if there were no other, is conclusive. Instead of our 
Baptist brethren having a right to call upon us to rind a di- 
rect warrant in the New Testament, in favour of infant 
membership, we have a right to call upon them to produce 
a direct warrant for the great and sudden change which they 
allege took place. If it be, as they say, that the New Tes- 
tament is silent on the subject, this very silence is quite 
sufhcient to destroy their cause, and to establish ours. It 
affords proof positive that no such change as that which is 
alleged ever occurred. That a change so important and in- 
teresting should have been introduced, without one word of 
explanation or apology on the part of the inspired apostles, 
and without one hint or struggle on the part of those who 
had enjoyed the former privilege; in short, that the old 
economy, in relation to this matter, should have been entire- 
ly broken up, and yet the whole subject passed over by the 
inspired writers in entire silence, is surely one of the most 
incredible things that can well be imagined ! He who can 
believe it, must have a mind "fully set in him" to embrace 
the system which requires it. 

So much on the supposition assumed by our Baptist breth 
ren, that there is no direct warrant in the New Testament 
for infant membership, and of course, none for infant bap- 
tism. Admitting that the New Testament is silent on the 
subject, their cause is ruined. No good reason, I had al- 
most said, no possible reason, can be assigned for such 
silence, in the circumstances in which the Christian church 
was placed, but the fact that things, as to this point, were to 
go on as before. That the old privilege, so dear to the pa- 
rent's heart, was to receive no other change than a new seal, 
less burdensome; applicable equally, to both sexes; in a 
word, recognising, extending, and perpetuating all the privi- 
leges which they had enjoyed before. 

But it cannot be admitted that the New Testament con 
tains no direct warrant for infant membership. The testi- 
mony adduced in the preceding discourse is surelv woithy, 

231 



dO INFANT BAPTISM. 

to say the least, oi the most serious regard. When the Mas- 
ter himself declares concerning infants, "Of such is the 
kingdom of heaven;" when an inspired apostle proclaims — 
"The promise is to us and our children;" and when we 
plainly see, under the apostolical administration of the 
church, whole families received, in repeated instances, into 
the church, on the professed faith of the individuals who 
were constituted their respective heads, just as we know oc- 
curred under the old economy, when the membership of in- 
fants was undisputed : when we read such things as these in 
the New Testament, we surely cannot complain of the want 
of testimony which ought to satisfy every reasonable inqui- 
rer. 

2. A second objection often urged by our Baptist breth- 
ren, is drawn from what they insist is the general law of 
"positive institutions. " In cases of moral duty, say they, 
we are at liberty to argue from inference, from analogy, from 
implication; but in regard to positive institutions, our war- 
rant must be direct and positive. Now, as we nowhere find 
in the New Testament any positive direction for baptizing 
infants, the general law, which must govern in all cases of 
positive institution, plainly forbids it. Here no inferential 
reasoning can be admitted." 

This argument, I am persuaded, will not be regarded as 
forcible by any who examine it with attention and impartiality. 
The whole principle is unsound. The fact is, inferential rea- 
soning may be, and is in many cases, quite as strong as any 
other. Besides, if it be contended, that in every thing rela- 
ting to positive institutes, we must have direct and positive 
precepts, the assumed principle will prove too much. 

Upon this principle, females ought never to partake of the 
Lord's Supper ; for we have no positive precept, and no ex- 
plicit example in the New Testament to warrant them in 
doing so, and yet our Baptist brethren, forgetting their own 
principle, unite with all Christians who consider the sacra- 
mental supper as still obligatory on the church, in admitting 
females to its participation. This practice is, no doubt, per- 
fectly right. It rests on the most solid inferential reasoning, 
which may be just as strong as any other, and which, in this 
case, cannot be gainsayed or resisted. But every time our 
Baptist brethren yield to this reasoning, and act accordingly, 
they desert their assumed principle. 

3. A third objection frequently urged is, that if infant bap- 
tism had prevailed in the primitive church, we might hove 
expected to find in the New Testament history some ex 



INFANT BAPTISM. 37 

amples of the children of professing Christians being bapti- 
zed in their it fancy. Our Baptist brethren remind us that 
the New Testament history embraces a period of more than 
sixty years after the organization of the church, under the 
new economy. "Now," say they, " during this long period, 
if the principle and practice of infant baptism had been the 
law of the church, we must, in all probability, have found 
many instances recorded of the baptism of the children of 
persons already in the communion of the church. Whereas, 
in all that is distinctly recorded, or occasionally hinted at, 
concerning the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, 
Ephesus Rome, Galatia, Colosse, &c, we find no mention 
made of such baptisms. We, therefore, conclude that none 
such occurred." 

This objection, when examined, will be found, it is believ- 
ed, to have quite as little weight as the preceding. The prin- 
cipal object of the New Testament history is to give an ac- 
count of the progress of the Gospel. Hence it was much 
more to the purpose of the sacred writers to inform us re- 
specting the conversions to Christianity, from Judaism and 
Paganism, than to dwell in detail on what occurred in the 
bosom of the church itself. Only enough is said on the lat- 
ter subject to trace the disturbances which occurred in the 
churches to their proper source, and to render intelligible and 
impressive the various precepts in relation to these matters 
which are recorded for the instruction of the people of God 
in all ages. Hence all the cases of baptism which are re- 
corded, are cases in which it was administered to converts 
from Judaism or Paganism, to Christianity. To the best 
of my recollection, we have no example of a single baptism 
of any other kind. Now this, upon Pcedobaptist principles, 
is precisely what might have been expected. In giving a 
history of such churches, who would think of singling out 
cases of infant baptism 1 This is a matter so much of course, 
and of every day's occurence, that it is in no respect a re- 
markable event, and, of course, could not be expected to be 
recorded as such. No wonder, then, that we find no instance 
of this kind specified in the annals of the apostolical church. 

But this is not all. There is connected with this fact, a 
still more serious difficulty, which cannot fail of bearing with 
most unfriendly weight on the Baptist cause. Though it is 
not wonderful, for the reason just mentioned, that we read of 
no cases of infant baptism, among the Christian families of 
the apostolical age ; yet, upon Baptist principles, it is much 
more difficult to be accounted for, that we find no example of 
u2 233 



38 INFANT BAPTISM. 

persons born of Christian parents being baptized in aduli 
agt. Upon those principles, the children of professing 
Christians bear no relation to the church. They are as com- 
pletely "without" as the children of Pagans and Mohamme- 
dans, until by faith and repentance they are brought within 
the bond of the covenant. Their being converted and bap- 
tized, then, we might expect to be just as carefully noticed, 
and just as minutely detailed, as the conversion and baptism 
of the most complete " aliens from the commonwealth of 
Israel." Yet the fact is, that during the whole three score 
years after the ascension of Christ, which the New Testa- 
ment history embraces, we have no hint of the baptism of 
any adult born of Christian parents. In my judgment this 
fact bears very strongly in favour of the Pcedobaptist cause. 

4. It is objected, that Jesus Christ himself was not bap- 
tized until he was thirty years of age; and, therefore, it is 
inferred, that his disciples ought not to be baptized until they 
reach adult age. To this objection I reply. 

(1.) Christ was baptized by John. Now, it is certain, that 
John's Baptism was not Christian baptism ; for it is evident 
from the Acts of the Apostles, (chap. xix. 1 — 5.) that those 
w r ho were baptized by John, were baptized over again, "in 
the name of the Lord Jesus." Besides, it is evident, from the 
whole passage, that the baptism of Christ by John was an 
essentially different thing from baptism as now practised in 
the Christian church. The ministry of John the Baptist was 
a dispensation, if we may say so, intermediate between the 
Old and the New Testament economies. And, as our bles- 
sed Lord thought proper to " fulfil all righteousness," he sub- 
mitted to the baptismal rite which marked that dispensation. 
Besides, under the Old Testament economy, when the High 
Priest first entered on his holy office, he was solemnly wash- 
ed with water. And that officer, we know, was w T ont to 
come to the discharge of his functions at " about thirty years 
of age," the very age at which our Saviour was baptized, and 
entered on his public ministry. In like manner, when the 
" great High Priest of our profession," Christ Jesus, entered 
on his public ministry, he thought proper to comply with the 
same ceremony ; that he might accomplish the prophecy, 
and fulfil all the typical representations concerning the Savi- 
our, which had been left on record in the Old Testament 
Scriptures. The baptism of Christ, then, has no reference 
to this controversy, and cannot be made to speak either for or 
against our practice in regard to this ordinance. But 

(2.) If this argument have any force, it proves more than 
2'H 



INFANT BAPTISM. 39 

our Baptist brethren are willing - to allow, viz : that no per* 
son ought to be baptized under thirty years of age. So that 
even a real Christian, however clear his evidences of laith and 
repentance, though he be twenty, twenty -Jive, or even twenty- 
nine years of age, must in no case think of being baptized 
until lie has reached the full age of thirty. A consequence 
so replete with absurdity, that the simple statement of it 
is enough to insure its refutation. 

5. A fifth objection continually made by our Baptist breth- 
ren is, that infants are not capable of those spiritual acts or 
exercises which the New Testament requires in order to a 
proper reception of the ordinance of Baptism. Thus the 
language of the New Testament, on various occasions is — 
" Repent, and be baptized. Believe, and be baptized. If 
thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized. 
They that, gladly received the word were baptized. Many of 
the Corinthians, having believed, were baptized." In short, 
say our Baptist brethren, as baptism is acknowledged on all 
hands to be a "seal of the righteousness of faith;" and as 
infants are altogether incapable of exercising faith : it is, of 
course, not proper to baptize them. 

In answer to this objection, my first remark is, that all 
those exhortations to faith and repentance, as prerequisites to 
baptism, which we lind in the New Testament, are addressed 
to adult persons. And when we are called to instruct adult 
persons, who have never been baptized, we always address 
them precisely in the same way in which the apostles did. 
We exhort them to repent and believe, and we say, just as 
Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
mayest be baptized." But this does not touch the question 
respecting the infant seed of believers. It only shows that 
when adults are baptized, such a qualification is to be urged, 
and such a profession required. And in this, all Pcedobap- 
tists unanimously agree. 

But still, our Baptist brethren, unsatisfied with this an- 
swer, insist, that, as infants are not capable of exercising 
faith ; as they are not capable of acting either intelligently or 
voluntarily in the case at all, they cannot be considered as 
the proper recipients of an ordinance which is represented 
as a "seal of the righteousness of faith." This objection is 
urged with unceasing confidence, and not seldom accompa- 
nied with a sneer or even ridicule, at the idea of applying a 
covenant seal to those who are incapable of either under- 
standing, or giving their consent, to the transaction. It is 
really, my friends, enough to make one shudder to think 

235 



40 INFANT BAFriSM. 

how often, and how unceremoniously language of this kind 
is employed by those who acknowledge that infants of 
eight days old, were once, and that by express Divine ap- 
pointment, made the subjects of circumcision. Now cir- 
cumcision is expressly said by the apostle to be a " seal of 
the righteousness of faith," as well as baptism. But were 
children of eight days old then capable of exercising faith, 
when they were circumcised, more than they are now when 
they are baptized? Surely the objection before us is as' 
valid in the one case as in the other. And, whether our 
Baptist brethren perceive it or not, all the charges of " ab- 
surdity" and " impiety" which they are so ready to heap on 
infant baptism, are just as applicable to infant circumcision 
as to infant baptism. Are they, then, willing to say, that 
the application of a " seal of the righteousness of faith" to 
unconscious infants, of eight days old, who, of course, could 
not exercise faith, was, under the old economy, preposte- 
rous and absurd? Are they prepared thus to "charge God 
foolishly ?" Yet they must do it, if they would be corsis- 
tent. They cannot escape from the shocking alternative. 
Every harsh and contemptuous epithet which they apply to 
infant baptism, must, if they would adhere to the principles 
which they lay down, be applied to infant circumcision. But 
that which unavoidably leads to such a consequence cannot 
be warranted by the word of God. 

After all, the whole weight of the objection, in this case, 
is founded on an entire forge tfulness of the main principle of 
the Posdobaptist system. It is forgotten that in every case 
of infant baptism, faith is required, and, if the parents be 
sincere, is actually exercised. But it is required of the pa- 
rents, not of the children. So that, if the parent really pre- 
sent his child in faith, the spirit of the ordinance is entirely 
met and answered. It was this principle which gave mea- 
ning and legitimacy to the administration of the correspon- 
ding rite under the old dispensation. It was because the pa- 
rents were visibly within the bond of the covenant, that their 
children were entitled to the same blessed privilege. The 
same principle precisely applies under the New Testament 
economy. Nor does it impair the force of this considera- 
tion to allege, that parents, it is feared, too often present 
their children, in this solemn ordinance, without genuine 
faith. It is, indeed, probable that this is often lamentably 
the fact. But so it was, we cannot doubt, with respect to 
the corresponding ordinance, under the old dispensation. 
Yet the circumcision was neither invalidated, nor rendered 
236 



INFANT BAPTISM. 41 

unmeaning, by this want of sincerity on the part of the pa- 
rent. It was sufficient for the visible administration that 
faith was visibly professed. When our Baptist brethren ad- 
minister the ordinance of baptism to one who professes to 
repent and believe, but who is not sincere in this proiession, 
they do not consider his want of faith as divesting the ordi- 
nance of either its warrant or its meaning. The administra- 
tion may be regular and scriptural, while the recipient is 
criminal, and receives no spiritual benefit. It is, in every 
case, the profession of faith which gives the right, in the eye 
of the church, to the external ordinance. The want of sin- 
cerity in this profession, while it deeply inculpates the hypo- 
critical individual, affects not either the nature or the warrant 
of the administration. 

6. Again; it is objected, that baptism can do infants no 
good. " Where," say our Baptist brethren, " is the benefit 
of it? What good can a little 'sprinkling with water' do a 
helpless, unconscious babe ?" To this objection I might 
reply, by asking in my turn — What good did circumcision do 
a Jewish child, helpless and unconscious, at eight days old? 
To ask the question is almost impious, because it implies an 
impeachment of infinite wisdom.* God appointed that ordi- 
nance to be administered to infants. And accordingly, when 
the apostle asked, in the spirit of some modern cavillers, 
" What profit is there of circumcision ?" He replies, much, 
every way. In like manner, when it is asked, " What pro- 
fit is there in baptizing our infant children ?" I answer, 
Much, every way. Baptism is a sign of many important 
truths, and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Is 
there no advantage in attending on an ordinance which holds 
up to our view, in the most impressive symbolical language, 
several of those fundamental doctrines of the Gospel which 
are of the deepest interest to us and our offspring ; such as 
our fallen, guilty, and polluted state by nature, and the 
method appointed by infinite wisdom and love for our reco- 
very, by the atoning blood, and cleansing Spirit of the Sa- 
viour ? Is there no advantage in solemnly dedicating our 
children to God by an appropriate rite, of his own appoint- 
ment ? Is there no advantage in formally binding ourselves, 
by covenant engagements, to bring up our offspring " in the 

* A grave and respectable Baptist minister, in the course of an argu- 
ment on this subject, candidly acknowledged that the administration 
of circumcision to an infant eight days old, would have appeared to 
him a useless, and even a silly rite ! An honest, and certainly a very 
natural confession. oq>v 

4iOi 



42 INFANT BAPTISM. 

nurture and admonition of the Lord ?" Is there no advantage 
in publicly ratifying the connection of our children, as well 
as ourselves, with the visible church, and as it were binding 
them to an alliance with the God of their fathers ? Is there 
nothing, either comforting or useful in solemnly recognising 
as our own that covenant promise, " I will establish my 
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be 
a God to thee and thy heed after thee?'''' Is it a step of no 
value to our children themselves, to be brought, by a divinely 
appointed ordinance, into the bosom, and to the notice, the 
maternal attentions, and the prayers of the church, " the mo- 
ther of us all ?" And is it of no advantage to the parents, in 
educating their children, to be able to remind them, from 
iime to time, that they have been symbolically sanctified, or 
set apart, by the seal of Jehovah's covenant, and to plead 
with them by the solemn vows which they have made on their 
behalf? Verily, my dear friends, those who refuse or ne- 
glect the baptism of their children, not only sin against 
Christ by disobeying his solemn command ; but they also 
deprive both themselves and their children of great benefits. 
They may imagine that, as it is a disputed point, it may be 
a matter of indifference, whether their children receive this 
ordinance in their infancy, or grow up unbaptized. But is 
not this attempting to be wiser than God ? I do not profess 
to know all the advantages attendant or consequent on the 
administration of this significant and divinely appointed rite ; 
but one thing I know, and that is, that Christ has appointed 
it as a sign of precious truths, and a seal of rich blessings, to 
his covenant people, and their infant offspring ; and I have 
no doubt that, in a multitude of cases, the baptized children, 
presented by professing parents who had no true faith, but 
who, by this act, brought their children within the care, the 
watch, and the privileges of the church, have been instrumen- 
tal in conferring upon their offspring rich benefits, while 
they themselves went down to everlasting burnings. If I 
mistake not I have seen many cases, in which as far as the 
eye of man could go, the truth of this remark has been sig- 
nally exemplified. 

Let it not be said, that such a solemn dedication of a child 
to God, is usurping the rights of the child to judge and act 
for himself, when he comes to years of discretion ; and that 
it is inconsistent with the privilege of every rational being to 
free inquiry, and free agency. This objection is founded on 
an infidel spirit. It is equally opposed to the religious edu- 
cation of children; and, if followed out, would militate 
238 



INFANT BAPTISM. 43 

against all those restraints, and that instruction which the 
word of God enjoins on parents. Nay, if the principle of 
this objection be correct, it is wrong to pre-occupy the minds 
of our children with an abhorrence of lying, theft, drunken- 
ness, malice, and murder ; lest, forsooth, we should fill them 
with such prejudices as would be unfriendly to free inquiry. 

The truth is, one great purpose for which the church was 
instituted, is to watch over and train up children in the know- 
ledge and fear of God, and thus, to " prepare a seed to serve 
nim, who should be accounted to the Lord for a generation." 
And I will venture to say, that that system of religion which 
does not embrace children in its ecclesiastical provisions, and 
in its covenant engagements, is most materially defective. 

Infants may not receive any apparent benefit from baptism, 
at the moment in which the ordinance is administered; 
although a gracious God may, even then, accompany the out- 
ward emblem with the blessing which it represents, even " the 
washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
Spirit." This, indeed, may not be, and most commonly, so 
far as we can judge, is not the case. But still the benefits of 
this ordinance, when faithfully applied by ministers, and faith- 
fully received by parents, are abundant — nay, great and im- 
portant every way. When children are baptized, they are 
thereby recognised as belonging to the visible church of God. 
They are, as it were, solemnly entered as scholars or disci- 
ples in the school of Christ. They are brought into a 
situation, in which they not only may be trained up for God, 
but in which their parents are bound so to train them up ; 
and the church is bound to see that they be so trained, as that 
the Lord's claim to them shall ever be recognised and main- 
tained. In a word, by baptism, when the administrators and 
recipients are both faithful to their respective trusts, children 
are brought into a situation in which all the means of grace ; 
all the privileges pertaining to Christ's covenanted family ; in 
a word, all that is comprehended under the broad and pre- 
cious import of the term Christian education, is secured to 
them in the most ample manner. Let parents think of this, 
when they come to present their children in this holy ordi- 
nance. And let children lay all this to heart, when they 
come to years in which they are capable of remembering and 
realizing their solemn responsibility. 

7. A seventh objection which our Baptist brethren fre- 
quently urge is, that, upon our plan, the result of baptism 
seldom corresponds with its professed meaning. We say it 
is a symbol of regeneration ; but experience proves that u 



44 INFANT BAPTISM. 

great majority of those infants who arebapti2ed> never par- 
take of the grace of regeneration. The practice of Pcedo- 
baptists, they tell us, is adapted to corrupt the church to the 
most extreme degree, by filling it with unconverted persons. 
To this objection we reply : 

That baptism is not more generally connected or followed 
with that spiritual benefit of which it is a striking emblem, 
is indeed to be lamented. But still this acknowledged fact 
does not, it is believed, either destroy the significance of the 
ordinance, or prove it to be useless. If it hold up to view, 
to all who behold it, every time that it is administered, the 
nature and necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit ; if 
it enjoin, and, to a very desirable extent, secure, to the chil- 
dren of the church enlightened and faithful instruction, in the 
great doctrines of the Gospel, and this doctrine of spiritual 
cleansing in particular ; and if it is, in a multitude of cases, 
actually connected with precious privileges, and saving bene- 
fits ; we have, surely, no right to conclude that it is of small 
advantage, because it is not in all cases followed by the bles- 
sing which it symbolically represents. How many read the 
Bible without profit ! How many attend upon the external 
service of prayer, without sincerity, and without a saving 
blessing ! But are the reading of the Scriptures, and the duty 
of prayer less obligatory, or of more dubious value on that 
account? In truth, the same objection might be made to 
circumcision. That, as well as baptism, was a symbol of re- 
generation, and of spiritual cleansing : but how many recei- 
ved the outward symbol without the spiritual benefit ? The 
fact is, the same objection may be brought against every in- 
stitution of God. They are all richly significant, and abound 
in spiritual meaning, and in spiritual instruction ; but their 
influence is moral, and may be defeated by unbelief. They 
cannot exert a physical power, or convert and save by their 
inherent energy. Hence they are often attended by many 
individuals without benefit ; but still their administration is 
by no means, in respect to the church of God, in vain in the 
Lord. It is daily exerting an influence of which no human 
arithmetic can form an accurate estimate. Thousands, no 
doubt, even of baptized adults receive the ordinance without 
faith, and of course, without saving profit. But thousands 
more receive it in faith, and in connexion with those precious 
benefits of which it is a symbol. This is the case with all 
ordinances ; but because they are not always connected with 
saving benefits, we are neither to disparage, nor cease to re 
commend them 
240 



INFANT BAPTISM. 45 

But if baptism be a symbol of regeneration ; if it hold 
forth to all who receive it, either for themselves or their off- 
spring, the importance and necessity of this great work of 
God's grace ; if it bind them to teach their children, as soon 
as they become capable of receiving instruction, this vital 
truth, as well as all the other fundamental truths of our holy 
religion ; if, in consequence of their baptism, children are re- 
cognised as bearing a most important relation to the church of 
God, as bound by her rules, and responsible to her tribunal : 
and if all these principles be faithfully carried out into prac- 
tice : can our children be placed in circumstances more favour- 
able to their moral benefit ? If not regenerated at the time of 
baptism, (which the nature of the ordinance does not neces- 
sarily imply) are they not, in virtue of their connexion with 
the church, thus ratified and sealed, placed in the best of all 
schools for learning, practically, as well as doctrinally, the 
things of God ? Are they not, by these means, even when 
they fail of becoming pious, restrained and regulated, and 
made better members of society? And are not multitudes of 
them, after all, brought back from their temporary wanderings, 
and by the reviving influence of their baptismal seal, and 
their early training, made wise unto salvation ? Let none 
say, then, that infant baptism seldom realizes its symbolical 
meaning. It is, I apprehend, made to do this far more fre- 
quently than is commonly imagined. And if those who 
offer them up to God in this ordinance, were more faithful, 
this favourable result would occur with a frequency more than 
tenfold. 

8. A further objection often urged by the opponents of in- 
fant baptism is, that we have the same historical evidence for 
infant communion that we have for infant baptism ; and 
that the evidence of the former in the early history of the 
church, altogether invalidates the historical testimony which 
we find in favour of the latter. 

In reply to this objection, it is freely granted, that the 
practice of administering the eucharist to children, and some- 
times even to very young children, infants, has been in use in 
various parts of the Christian church, from an early period, 
and is, in some parts of the nominally Christian world, still 
maintained. About the middle of the third century, we hear 
of it in some of the African churches. A misconception of 
the Saviour's words — " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ;" led manv 
to believe that a participation of the Lord's supper was es- 
sential to salvation. They were, therefore, led to give a small 
V 241 



46 INFANT BAPTISM. 

portion of the sacramental bread dipped in wine to children, 
and dying persons, who were not able to receive it in the 
usual form ; and, in some cases, we find that this. morsel of 
bread moistened with the consecrated trine was even forced 
down the throats of infants, who were reluctant or unable to 
swallow it. Nay, to so revolting a length was this supersti- 
tion carried in a few churches, that the consecrated bread and 
wine united in the same manner as in the case of infants, 
were thrust into the mouths of the dead, who had departed 
without receiving them during life ! 

But it is doing great injustice to the cause of infant baptism 
to represent it as resting on no better ground than the practice 
of infant communion. The following points of difference 
are manifest, and appear to me perfectly conclusive. 

(1.) Infant communion derives not the smallest countenance 
from the word of God ; whereas, with regard to infant bap- 
tism, we find in Scripture its most solid and decisive support. 
It would rest on a firm foundation if every testimony out of 
the Bible were destroyed. 

(2.) The historical testimony in favour of infant commu- 
nion, is greatly inferior to that which we possess in favour ot 
infant baptism. We have no hint of the former having been 
in use in any church until the time of Cyprian, about the 
middle of the third century ; whereas testimony more or less 
clear in favour of the latter has come down to us from the 
apostolic age. 

(3.) Once more : Infant communion by no means stands on 
a level with infant baptism as to its universal or even general 
reception. We find two eminent men in the fourth century, 
among the most learned then on earth, and who had enjoyed 
the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the whole 
church, declaring that the baptism of infants was a practice 
which had come down from the apostles, and was universally 
practised in the church ; nay, that they had never heard of 
any professing Christians in the world, either orthodox or 
heretical, who did not baptize their children. But we have 
no testimony approaching this, in proof of the early and uni- 
versal adoption of infant communion. It was manifestly an 
innovation, founded on principles which, though, to a melan- 
choly degree prevalent, were never universally received. 
And as miserable superstition brought it into the church, so a 
still more miserable superstition destroyed it. When transub- 
stantiation arose, the sacred elements, (now transmuted, as 
was supposed, into the real body and blood of the Saviour) 
began to be considered as too awful in their character to be 
242 



INFANT BAPTISM. 47 

imparted to children. But in the Greek church, who sepa- 
rated from the Latin before the transubstantiation was estab- 
lished, the practice of infant communion still superstitiously 
continues. 

9. Again : It is objected that Pcedobaptists are not consis- 
tent with themselves, in that they do not treat their children 
as if they were members of the church. ** Pcedobaptists, " 
sav our Baptist brethren, " maintain that the children of pro- 
fessing Christians are, in virtue of their birth, members of 
the church — plenary members — externally in covenant with 
God, and as such made the subjects of a sacramental seal. 
Yet we seldom or never see a Pcedobaptist church treating 
her baptized children as church members, that is, instruct- 
ing-, watching over, and disciplining them, as in the case of 
adult members. Does not this manifest that their system is 
inconsistent with itself, impracticable, and therefore unsound?" 
This objection is a most serious and weighty one, and ought 
to engage the conscientious attention of every Pcedobaptist 
who wishes to maintain his profession with consistency and 
to edification. 

It cannot be denied, then, that the great mass of the Pcedo- 
baptist churches, do act inconsistently in regard to this matter. 
They do not carry out, and apply their own system by a 
corresponding practice. That baptized children should be 
treated by the church and her officers just as other children 
are treated : that they should receive the seal of a covenant 
relation to God and his people, and then be left to negligence 
and sin, without official inspection, and without discipline, 
precisely as those are left who bear no relation to the church, 
is, it must be confessed, altogether inconsistent with the na- 
ture and design of the ordinance, and in a high degree un- 
friendly to the best interests of the Church of God. This 
distressing fact, however, as has been often observed, mili- 
tates, not against the doctrine itself, of infant membership, but 
against the inconsistency of those who profess to adopt and 
to act upon it. 

If one great end of instituting a church, as was before ob- 
served, is the training up of a godly seed in the way of 
truth, holiness, and salvation ; and if one great purpose of 
sacramental seals is to " separate between the precious and 
the vile," and to set a distinguishing mark upon the Lord's 
people ; then, undoubtedly, those who bear this mark, whether 
infant or adult, ought to be treated with appropriate inspec- 
tion and care, and their relation to the Church of God never, 
for a moment, lost sight of or neglected. In regard to adults, 
5 S & 243 



48 INFANT BAPTISM. 

mis duty is generally recognised by all evangelical churches. 
Why it has fallen into so much neglect, in regard to our in- 
fant and juvenile members, may be more easily explained 
than justified. And yet it is manifest, that attention to the 
duty in question in reference to the youthful members of the 
church, is not only important, but, in some respects, pre- 
eminently so ; and peculiarly adapted to promote the edifica- 
tion and enlargement of the Christian family. 

If it be asked, what more can be done for the moral culture 
and welfare of baptized children, than is done ? I answer, 
much, that would be of inestimable value to them, and to the 
Christian community. The task, indeed, of training them 
up for God, is an arduous one, but it is practicable, and 
the faithful discharge of it involves the richest reward. The 
following plan may be said naturally to grow out of the doc- 
trine of infant membership ; and no one can doubt that, if 
carried into faithful execution, it would form a new and glo- 
rious era in the history of the Church of God. 

Let all baptized children, from the hour of their receiving 
the seal of God's covenant, be recorded and recognised as in- 
fant disciples. Let the officers of the church, as well as 
their parents according to the flesh, ever regard them with a 
watchful and affectionate eye. Let Christian instruction, 
Christian restraint, and Christian warning, entreaty and prayer 
ever attend them, from the mother's lap to the infant school, 
and from the infant school to the seminary, whatever it may 
be, for more mature instruction. Let them be early taught to 
reverence and read the word of God, and to treasure up 
select portions of it in their memories. Let appropriate cate- 
chisms, and other sound compends of Christian truth, be put 
into their hands, and by incessant repetition and inculcation 
be impressed upon their minds. Let a school or schools, ac- 
cording to its extent, be established in each church, placed 
under the immediate instruction of exemplary, orthodox, and 
pious teachers, carefully superintended by the pastor, and 
visited as often as practicable by all the officers of the church. 
Let these beloved youth be often reminded of the relation 
which they bear to the Christian family; and the just claim 
of Christ to their affections and service, be often presented 
with distinctness, solemnity, and affection. Let every kind 
of error and immorality be faithfully reproved, and as far as 
possible suppressed in them. Let the pastor convene the 
baptized children as often as practicable, and address them 
with instruction and exhortation in the name of that God to 
whom they have been dedicated, and every endeavour made 
244 



INFANT BAPTISM. 49 

to impress their consciences and their hearts with Gospel 
truth. When they come to years of discretion, let them be 
affectionately reminded of their duty to ratify, by their own 
act, the vows made by their parents in baptism, and be urged, 
again and again, to give, first their hearts, and then the hum- 
ble acknowledgment of an outward profession, to the Saviour. 
Let this plan be pursued faithfully, constantly, patiently, and 
with parental tenderness. If instruction and exhortation be 
disregarded, and a course of error, immorality, or negligence 
be indulged in, let warning, admonition, suspension, or ex- 
communication ensue, according to the character of the indi- 
vidual, and the exigencies of the case. " What!" some will 
be disposed to say, " suspend or excommunicate a young 
person, who has never yet taken his seat at a sacramental 
table, nor even asked for thai privilege?" Certainly. Why 
not ? If the children of professing Christians are born mem- 
bers of the church, and are baptized as a sign and seal of 
this membership, nothing can be plainer than that they ought 
to be treated in every respect as church members, and, of 
course, if they act in an unchristian manner, a bar ought to 
be set up in the way of their enjoying Christian privileges. 
If this be not admitted, we must give up the very first princi- 
ples of ecclesiastical order and duty. Nor is there, obviously 
any thing more incongruous in suspending or excluding from 
church privileges a young man, or young woman, who has 
been baptized in infancy, and trained up in the bosom of the 
church, but has now no regard for religion, than there is in 
suspending or excommunicating one who has been, for many 
years, an attendant on the Lord's table, but has now forsaken 
the house of God, and has no longer any desire to approach 
a Christian ordinance. No one would consider it as either 
incongruous or unreasonable to declare such a person unwor- 
thy of Christian fellowship, and excluded from it. though he 
had no disposition to enjoy it. The very same principle 
applies in the case now under consideration. 

It has been supposed, indeed, by some Pcedobaptists, that 
although every baptized child is a regular church member, he 
is a member only of the general visible church, and not in 
the ordinary sense, of any particular church ; and, therefore, 
that he is not amenable to ecclesiastical discipline until he 
formally connects himself with some particular church. 
This doctrine appears to me subversive of every principle of 
ecclesiastical order. Every baptized child is, undoubtedly, 
to be considered as a member of the church in which he re- 
ceived baptism, until he dies, is excommunicated, or regularly 
v 2 245 



50 INFANT BAPTISM. 

dismissed to another church. And if the time shall ever come 
when all our churches shall act upon this plan ; when infant 
members shall be watched over with unceasing and affection- 
ate moral care ; when a baptized young person, of either sex, 
being not yet what is called a communicant, shall be made the 
subject of mild and faithful Christian discipline, if he fall 
into heresy or immorality ; when he shall be regularly dis- 
missed, by letter, from the watch and care of one church to 
another; and when all his spiritual interests shall be guarded, 
by the church, as well as by his parents, with sacred and 
affectionate diligence ; when this efficient and faithful system 
shall be acted upon, infant baptism will be universally ac- 
knowledged as a blessing, and the church will shine with new 
and spiritual glory. 

The truth is, if infant baptism were properly improved ; if 
the profession which it includes, and the obligations which it 
imposes, were suitably appreciated and followed up, it would 
have few opponents. I can no more doubt, if this were done, 
that it would be blessed to the saving conversion of thousands 
of our young people, than I can doubt the faithfulness of a 
covenant God. Yes, infant baptism is of God, but the 
fault lies in the conduct of its advocates. The inconsistency 
of its friends has done more to discredit it, than all the argu- 
ments of its opposers, a hundred fold. Let us hope that 
these friends will, one day, arouse from their deplorable 
lethargy, and show that they are contending for an ordinance 
as precious as it is scriptural. 

10. Another objection, often urged with confidence, against 
infant membership and baptism is, that, if they be well foun- 
ded, then it follows, of course, that every baptized young 
person, or even child, who feels disposed to do so, has a 
right to come to the Lord's table, without inquiry or per- 
mission of any one. Upon this principle, say our Baptist 
brethren, as a large portion of those who are baptized in in- 
fancy are manifestly not pious, and many of them become 
openly profligate ; if their caprice or their wickedness should 
prompt them to go forward, the church would be disgraced 
by crowds of the most unworthy communicants. 

This objection is founded on an entire mistake. And a 
recurrence, for one moment, to the principles of civil society, 
will at once expose it. Every child is a citizen of the coun- 
try in which he w T as born : a plenary citizen : there is no 
such thing as half-way citizenship in this case. He is a free 
bom citizen in the fullest extent of the term. Yet, until he 
reach a certain age, and possess certain qualifications, he is 
246 



INFANT BAPTISM. 51 

not eligible to the most important offices which his country 
lias to confer. And after he has been elected, he cannot take 
his seat for the discharge of these official functions, until he 
has taken certain prescribed oaths. It is evident that the 
State has a right, and finds it essential to her well being, by 
her constitution and her laws, thus to limit the rights of the 
citizen. Still no one supposes that he is the less a citizen, 
or thinks of representing him as only a half-way citizen prior 
to his compliance with these forms. In like manner every 
baptized child is a member — a plenary member of the church 
in which he received the sacramental seal. There his mem- 
bership is recognised and recorded, and there alone can he 
regularly receive a certificate of this fact, and a dismission 
to put himself under the watch and care of any other church. 
Still the church to which this ecclesiastical minor belongs, in 
the exercise of that " authority which Christ has given, for 
edification and not for destruction," will not suffer him, if 
she does her duty, to come to the Lord's table, until he has 
reached an age when he has " knowledge to discern the 
Lord's body," and until he shall manifest that exemplary 
deportment and hopeful piety which become one who claims 
the privileges of Christian communion. If he manifest an 
opposite character, it is her duty, as a part of her stated dis- 
cipline, to prevent his enjoying these privileges just as it is 
her duty, in the case of one who has been a communicant 
for years, when he departs from the order and purity of a 
Christian profession, to debar him from the continued enjoy- 
ment of his former good standing. In short, the language of 
the apostle Paul, though originally intended for a different 
purpose, is strictly applicable to the subject before us : " The 
heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from the ser- 
vant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and gover- 
nors, until the time appointed of the Father." In a word, 
in the Church, as well as in the State, there is an order in 
which privileges are to be enjoyed. As it is not every citi- 
zen who is eligible to office ; and as not even the qualified 
have a right to intrude into office uncalled; so youthful 
church members, like all others, are under the watch and 
care of the church, and the time and manner in which they 
shall recognise their baptismal engagements, and come to the 
enjoyment of plenary privileges, Christ has left his church to 
decide, on her responsibility to himself. No one, of any age, 
has a right to come to her communion without the consent of 
the church. When one, after coming to that communion 
has been debarred from it for a time, by regular ecclesiastical 

247 



52 INFANT BAPTISM. 

authority, he has no right to come again until the interdict is 
taken ofT. Of course, by parity of reasoning, one who has 
never yet come at all, cannot come without asking and ob- 
taining the permission of those who are set to govern in the 
church. 

This view of the subject is at once illustrated and confir- 
med by the uniform practise of the Old Testament church. 
The children of Jewish parents, though regular church mem- 
bers in virtue of their birth, and recognised as such in virtue 
of their circumcision, were still not allowed to come to the 
Passover until they were of a certain age, and not even then, 
unless they were ceremonially clean. This is so well attes- 
ted by sacred antiquarians, both Jewish and Christian, that 
it cannot be reasonably called in question. Calvin remarks, 
that " the Passover, which has now been succeeded by the 
sacred Supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions pro- 
miscuously ; but was rightly eaten only by those who were 
of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification." 
The same distinct statement is also made by the Rev. Dr. 
Gill, an eminent commentator of the Baptist denomination. 
" According to the maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons 
were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the 
penaltes of it in case of non-performance, until they were, a 
female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male 
at the age of thirteen years and one day. But then they 
used to train up their children, and inure them to religious 
exercises before. They were not properly under the law 
until they were arrived at the age above mentioned; nor 
were they reckoned adult church members until then ; nor 
then neither unless worthy persons ; for so it is said, " He that 
is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called a son of the 
congregation of Israel." (Commentary on Luke ii. 42.) 

The objection, then, before us is of no force. Or rather, 
the fact which it alleges and deprecates has no existence. It 
makes no part of the Poedobaptist system. Nay, our system 
has advantages in respect to this matter, great and radical ad- 
vantages, which belong to no other. While it regards bap- 
tized children as members of the church, and solemnly binds 
the church, as well as the parents, to see that they be faith- 
fully trained up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," 
it recognises the church as possessing, and as bound to exer 
cise the power of guarding the communion table from all the 
profane approaches, even of her own children, and so regu- 
lating their Christian culture, and their personal recognition 
of Christian duty, as shall best serve the great purpose of 



I>FANT BAPTISM. 53 

building up the church as " an habitation of God through the 
Spirit.'' 

11. The last objection which I propose to considei is this 
" If baptism," say our opponents, " takes the place of cir- 
cumcision, and if the church is the same in substance now 
as when circumcision was the initiating seal, then why is not 
baptism as universal in the New Testament church, as cir- 
cumcision was under the old economy? Why is not every 
child, under the light of the Gospel, baptized, as every 
Israelitish child was circumcised." I answer, this undoubt- 
edly, ought to be the case. That is, all parents, where the 
Gospel comes, ought to be true believers; ought to be mem- 
bers of the Church of Christ themselves ; and ought to dedi- 
cate their children to God in holy baptism. The command 
of God calls for it ; and if parents were what they ought to 
be, they would be all prepared for a proper application of 
this sacramental seal. Under the Mosaic dispensation, a sin- 
gle nation of the great human family, was called out of an 
idolatrous world to be the depository of the w r ord and the 
ordinances of the true God. Then all who belonged to that 
nation were bound to be holy ; and unless they were at least 
ceremonially clean, the divine direction was, that they should 
be " cut off from their people." The obligation was univer- 
sal, and the penalty, in case of delinquency, was universal. 
Multitudes of parents, no doubt, under that economy, pre- 
sented their children to God in the sacrament of circumcision, 
who had no true faith ; but they professed to believe ; they 
attended to all the requisitions of ceremonial cleanness, and 
that rendered the circumcision authorized and regular. So 
in the New Testament church. This is a body, like the 
other, called out from the rest of mankind, but not confined 
to a particular nation. It consists of all those, of every na- 
tion, who profess the true religion. Within this spiritual 
community baptism ought to be as universal as circumcision 
was in the old " commonwealth of Israel." Those parents 
who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and those 
only, ought to present their children in baptism. There is, 
indeed, reason to fear that many visible adult members are 
not sincere. Still, as they are externally regular, their chil- 
dren are entitled to baptism. And were the whole infant 
population of our land in these circumstances, they might, 
and ought to be baptized. 

I have thus endeavoured to dispose of the various objec- 
tions which our Baptist brethren are wont to urge against the 
cause of infant baptism. I have conscientiously aimed to 

249 



54 INFANT BAPTISM. 

present them in all their force ; and am constrained to believe 
that neither Scripture, reason, nor ecclesiastical history afford 
them the least countenance. The longer I reflect on the 
subject, the deeper is my conviction, that the membership 
and the baptism of infants rest on grounds which no fair ar- 
gument can shake or weaken. 

From the principles implied or established in the forego- 
ing pages, we may deduce the following practical conclu- 
sions : 

1. We are warranted in returning with renewed confi- 
dence to the conclusion stated in advance, in the early part 
of our first discourse, viz : that the error of our Baptist breth- 
ren in rejecting the church membership and the baptism of 
infants, is a most serious and mischievous error. It is not 
a mere mistake about a speculative point; but is an error 
which so directly contravenes the spirit of the whole Bible, 
and of all Jehovah's covenants with his people, in every age, 
that it must be considered as invading some of the most vital 
interests of the body of Christ, and as adapted to exert a most 
baneful influence on his spiritual kingdom. On this subject, 
my friends, my expressions are strong, because my convic- 
tions are strong, and my desire to guard every hearer against 
mischievous error increasingly strong. I am, indeed, by no 
means disposed to deny either the piety or the honest con- 
victions of our respected Baptist brethren in adopting an op- 
posite opinion from ours. But I am, nevertheless, deeply 
convinced that their system is not only entirely unscriptural, 
but also that its native tendency is to place children, who are 
the hope of the church, in a situation less friendly to the 
welfare of Zion, and less favourable, by far, to their own 
salvation, than that in which they are placed by our system ; 
and that its ultimate influence on the rising generation, on 
family religion, and on the growth of the church, must be 
deeply injurious. 

2. Again; it is evident, from what has been said, that the 
baptism of our children means much, and involves much 
solemn tender obligation. We do not, indeed, ascribe to 
this sacrament that kind of inherent virtue of which some 
who bear the Christian name have spoken and inferred so 
much. We do not believe that baptism is regeneration. 
(See Additional Notes.) We consider this as a doctrine 
having no foundation in the word of God, and as eminently 
fitted to deceive and destroy the soul. We do not suppose 
that the ordinance, whenever legitimately administered, is 
necessarily accompanied with any physical or moral inllu- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 55 

ence, operating either on the soul or the body of him who 
receives it. Yet, on the other hand, we do not consider it 
as a mere unmeaning ceremony. We cannot regard it as the 
mere giving a name to the child to whom it is dispensed. 
Multitudes appear to regard it as amounting to little, if any 
more than one or both of these. And, therefore, they con- 
sider the season of its celebration as a kind of ecclesiastical 
festival or pageant. They would not, on any account, have 
the baptism of their children neglected ; and yet they solicit 
and receive it for their offspring, with scarcely one serious 
or appropriate thought ; without any enlightened or adequate 
impression of what it means, or what obligation it imposes 
on them or their children. A baptism, like a marriage, is re- 
garded by multitudes as an appropriate season for congratula- 
tion and feasting, and very little more, in connection with it, 
seems to occur to their minds. This is deeply to be deplo- 
red. The minds of the. mass of mankind seem to be ever 
prone to vibrate from superstition to impiety, and from im- 
piety back to superstition. Those simple, spiritual views 
of truth, and of Christian ordinances which the Bible every 
where holds forth, and which alone tend to real benefit, too 
seldom enlighten and govern the mass of those who bear the 
Christian name. Now, the truth is, little as it is recollected 
and laid to heart, few things can be more expressive, more 
solemn, or more interesting, more touching in its appeals, 
more deeply comprehensive in its import, or more weighty 
in the obligations which it involves, than the baptism of an 
infant. I repeat it — and oh, that the sentence could be made 
to thrill through every parent's heart in Christendom — the 
baptism of a child is one of the solemn transactions pertairir 
ing to our holy religion. A human being, just opening its 
eyes on the world ; presented to that God who made it, de- 
voted to that Saviour without an interest in whose atoning 
blood, it had better never have been born ; and consecrated 
to that Holy Spirit, who alone can sanctify and prepare it 
for heaven; is indeed a spectacle adapted to affect every 
pious heart. In death, our race is run ; worldly hope and 
expectation are alike extinct ; and the destiny of the immor- 
tal spirit is forever fixed. But the child presented for bap- 
tism, if it reach the ordinary limit of human life, has before 
it many a trial, and will need all the pardoning mercy, 
all the sanctifying grace, and all the precious consolations 
which the blessed Gospel of Christ has to bestow. And 
even if it die in infancy, it still needs the pardoning mercy 
and sanctifying grace which are set forth in this ordinance, 

251 



56 INFANT BAPTISM. 

On either supposition, the transaction is important. A 
course is commenced which will be a blessing or a curse be- 
yond the power of the human mind to estimate. And the 
eternal happiness or the misery of the young immortal will 
depend, under God, upon the training it shall receive from 
the hands of those who offer it. 

Let those, then, w T ho bring their children to the sacred font 
to be baptized, ponder well what this ordinance means, and 
what its reception involves, both in regard to parents and 
children. Let them remember that in taking this step, we 
make a solemn profession of belief, that our children, as well 
as ourselves, are born in sin, and stand in indispensable need 
of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace. We formally de- 
dicate them to God, that they may be " washed and justified, 
and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the 
Spirit of our God. And we take upon ourselves solemn 
vows to train them up in the knowledge and fear of God ; to 
instruct them, from the earliest dawn of reason, in the prin- 
ciples and duties of our holy religion ; to consider and treat 
them as ingrafted members of the family of Christ, and to 
do all in our power, by precept and example, by authority 
and by prayer, to lead them in the ways of truth, of holiness, 
and of salvation. Is this an ordinance to be engaged in as a 
mere ceremony, or with convivial levity ? Surely if there be 
a transaction, among all the duties incumbent on us as Chris- 
tians — if there be a transaction which ought to be engaged in 
with reverence, and godly fear : with penitence, faith, and 
love ; with bowels of Christian compassion yearning over 
our beloved offspring ; with humble and importunate aspi- 
rations to the God of all grace for his blessing on them and 
ourselves ; and with solemn resolutions, in the strength of his 
grace, that we will be faithful to our vows, — this is that 
transaction ! O how full of meaning ! And yet how little 
thought of by the most of those who engage in it with exter- 
nal decorum ! 

3. The foregoing discussion will show by whom children 
ought to be presented in holy baptism. The answer given 
by the old Waldenses to this question is, undoubtedly, the 
wisest and best. They say, as before quoted, " Children 
ought to be presented in baptism by those to whom they are 
most nearly related such as their parents, or those whom 
God hath inspired with such a charity." If parents be 
living and be of a suitable character ; that is, if they have 
been baptized themselves, and sustain a regular standing as 
professing Christians, they, and they alone, ought to present 
252 



INFANT BAPTISM. 57 

their children in this ordinance. And all introduction of 
godfathers and godmothers, as sponsors, either instead of the 
parents, or besides the parents, is regarded by the great ma- 
jority of Pcedobaptist churches as superstitious, unwarranted, 
and of course, mischievous in its tendency. Whatever tends 
to beget erroneous ideas of the nature and design of a Gos- 
pel ordinance ; to shift off the responsibility attending it from 
the proper to improper hands ; and to the assumption of so- 
lemn engagements by those who can never really fulfil them, 
and have no intention of doing it, cannot fail of exerting an 
influence unfriendly to the best interests of the Church of 
God. 

But if the parents be dead ; or, though living, of irreligious 
character; and if the grand parents, or any other near rela- 
tions, of suitable qualifications, be willing to undertake the 
office of training up children " in the nurture and admonition 
of the Lord," it is proper for them to present such children 
in baptism. Or if deserted, or orphan children be cast in the 
families of strangers, who are no way related to them accor- 
ding to the flesh, but who are willing to stand in the place 
of parents, and train them up for God ; even these strangers, 
in short, any and every person of suitable character, who 
may be willing to assume the charitable office of giving them 
a Christian education, may and ought to present such chil- 
dren for Christian baptism. Not only the offspring of Abra- 
ham's body, but " all that were born in his house, and all 
that were bought with his money," were commanded to be 
circumcised. Surely no Christian who has a child, white 
or black, placed in his family, and likely to be a permanent 
member of it, can doubt that it is his duty to give it a faithful 
Christian education. And as one great object of infant bap- 
tism is to secure this point, he will not hesitate to offer it up 
to God in that ordinance which he has appointed, provided 
no valid objection in regard to the wishes of the parents of 
such a child interpose to prevent it. 

4. This subject shows how responsible, and how solemn 
is the situation of those young persons ivho have been in 
their infancy dedicated to God in holy baptism.' This is a 
point concerning which both old and young are too often for- 
getful. It is generally conceded, and extensively felt, that 
parents, by dedicating their children to God in this ordi- 
nance, are brought under very weighty obligations, which 
cannot be forgotten by them, without incurring great guilt. 
But young people seldom lay to heart as they ought, that 
their early reception of the seal of God's covenant, in conse* 
W 253 



58 INFANT BAPTISM. 

quence of the act of their parents, places them in circum- 
stances of the most solemn and responsible kind. They are 
too apt to imagine that they are not members of the church, 
until by some act of profession of their own, they are brought 
into this relation, and assume its bonds ; that their making 
this profession, or not making it, is a matter of mere choice, 
left to their own decision ; that by omitting it, they violate 
no tie— contract no guilt; that by refraining, they leave them- 
selves more at liberty ; and that the only danger consists in 
making an insincere profession. This is a view of the sub- 
ject, which, however common, is totally, and most crimi- 
nally erroneous. The children of professing Christians are 
already in the church. They were born members. Their 
baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratifi- 
cation and recognition of their membership. They were 
baptized because they were members. They received the 
seal of the covenant because they were already in covenant 
by virtue of their birth. This blessed privilege is their 
"birth-right." Of course, the only question they can ask 
themselves is, not — shall we enter the church, and profess to 
be connected with Christ's family ? But — shall we continue 
in it, or act the part of ungrateful deserters ? " Shall we be 
thankful for this privilege, and gratefully recognise and con- 
firm it by our own act ; or shall we renounce our baptism ; 
disown and deny the Saviour in whose name we have been 
enrolled as members of his family ; and become open apos- 
tates from that family ?" This is the real question to be de- 
cided ; and truly a solemn question it is ! Baptized young 
people ! think of this. You have been in the bosom of the 
church ever since you drew your first breath. The seal of 
God's covenant has been placed upon you. You cannot, if 
you would, escape from the responsibility of this relation. 
You may forget it ; you may hate to think of it ; you may 
despise it ; but still the obligation lies upon you ; you cannot 
throw it off. Your situation is solemn beyond expression. 
On the one hand, to go forward, and to recognise your obli- 
gation by a personal profession, without any love to the Sa- 
viour, is to insult him by a heartless offering ; and on the 
other, to renounce your allegiance by refusing to acknow- 
ledge him, by turning your bavKs on his ordinances, and 
by indulging in that course ol life by which his religion is 
dishonoured, is certainly, whether you realise it or not, to 
" deny him before men," and to incur the fearful guilt of 
apostacy ; of " drawing back unto perdition." 

" According to this representation," 1 shall be told, " the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 59 

condition of many of our youth is very deplorable. It is 
their duty, you say, to profess the name of Christ, and to 
seal their profession at a sacramental table. This they can- 
not do ; for they are conscious that they do not possess those 
principles and dispositions which are requisite to render 
such a profession honest. What course shall they steer? 
If they do not profess Christ, they live in rebellion against 
God : if they do, they mock him with a lie. Which side 
of the alternative shall they embrace? Continue among the 
profane, and be consistently wicked? Or withdraw from 
them in appearance and play the hypocrite?" 

The case is, indeed, very deplorable. Destruction is on 
either hand. For " the unbelieving shall have their part in 
the lake of fire ; (Rev. xxi. 6.) and the hope of the hypo- 
crite shall perish :" (Job. viii. 13.) God forbid that we 
should encourage either a false profession, or a refusal to 
make one. The duty is to embrace neither side of the alter- 
native. Not to continue with the profane, and not to act 
the hypocrite ; but to receive the Lord Jesus Christ in truth, 
and to walk in him. " I cannot do it," replies one: and 
one, it may be, not without moments of serious and tender 
emotions upon this very point : " I cannot do it." My soul 
bleeds for thee, thou unhappy! But it must be done, or 
thou art lost forever. Yet what is the amount of that expres- 
sion — in the mouth of some a flaunting excuse, and of others, 
a bitter complaint — I cannot? Is the inability to believe in 
Christ different from an inability to perform any other duty ? 
Is there any harder necessity of calling the God of truth a 
liar, in not believing the record which he hath given of his 
Son, than of committing any other sin ? The inability cre- 
ated, the necessity imposed, by the enmity of the carnal 
mind against God? (Rom. viii. 7.) It is the inability of 
wickedness, and of nothing else. Instead of being an apol- 
ogy, it is itself the essential crime, and can never become 
its own vindication. 

But it is even so. The evil does lie too deep for the 
reach of human remedies. Yet a remedy there is, and an 
effectual one. It is here — " I will sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and you shall be clean ; from all your filthiness 
and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart 
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; 
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh ; and 
I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes ; and ye 
shall keep my judgments and do them. (Ezek. xxxvi. 

255 



60 INFANT BAPTISM. 

25 — 27.) Try this experiment. Go with thy " filthiness/ 
and thine " idols ;" go with thy " stony heart," and thy per- 
verse spirit, which are thy real inability, to God upon the 
throne of grace ; spread out before him his " exceeding greaf 
and precious promises ; importune him as the hearer of 
prayer, in the name of Jesus, for the accomplishment of them 
to thyself. Wait for his mercy, it is worth waiting for, and 
remember his word — Therefore will the Lord wait, that he 
may be gracious unto you ; and therefore will he be exalted, 
that he may have mercy upon you : for the Lord is a God 
of judgment ; blessed are all they that wait for him.* 

5. Finally, from the foregoing principles and considera- 
tions, it is evident, that the great body of Pcedobaptist 
churches have much to reform in regard to their treatment 
of baptized children, and are bound to address themselves 
to that reform uiih all speed and fidelity. It has been al- 
ready observed, that one great end for which the church of 
God was instituted, was to train up, from age to age, a seed 
to serve God, and to be faithful witnesses in behalf of the 
truth and order of his family, in the midst of an unbelieving 
world. If this be so, then, surely the church, in her eccle- 
siastical capacity, is bound carefully to watch over the edu- 
cation, and especially, the religious education of her youth- 
ful members ; nor is there any risk in asserting, that just in 
proportion as she has been faithful to this part of her trust, 
she has flourished in orthodoxy, piety, and peace ; and that 
when she has neglected it, her children have grown up in 
ignorance, and too often in profligacy, and wandered from 
her fold into every form of error. If the church wishes her 
baptized youth to be a comfort and a strength to their moral 
mother ; if she wishes them to adhere with intelligence, and 
with dutiful affection to her distinctive testimony ; and to be 
a generation to the praise of Zion's King, when their fathers 
shall have gone to their final account ; then let her, by all 
means, watch over the training of her young people with pe- 
culiar diligence and fidelity ; and consider a very large part 
of her duty, as a church, as consisting in constant and faith- 
ful attention to the moral and religious culture of the rising 
generation. 

What is the reason that so many of the baptized youth, in 
almost all our Pcedobaptist churches, grow up in ignorance 

* The two preceding paragraphs are from the powerful and eloquent 
pen of the late Rev. J. M. Mason, D. D. See Christian's Magazine, 
Vd. II. p. 414—416. 
256 



INFANT BAPTISM. 61 

and disregard of the religion of their parents ? Why are so 
many of them, when they come to judge and act for them- 
selves, found embracing systems of gross error, if not total 
infidelity, and wandering, in too many instances, into the 
paths of degrading profligacy ? It is not enough to say, that 
onr children are by nature depraved, and prone to the ways 
of error and folly. This is, doubtless, true ; but it is not the 
whole truth. It cannot be questioned, that much of the rea- 
son lies at the door o* the church herself, as well as of the 
parents of such youth. The church has too often forgotten 
that baptism is as really a seal to the church, as it is to the 
parents and the children who receive it. And, therefore, 
while in many instances, a superstitious regard has been paid 
to the mere rite of Baptism, a most deplorable neglect of the 
duties' arising from it has been indulged, even by some of our 
most evangelical churches. Parents while most vigilantly 
attentive to the literary, scientific, and ornamental education 
of their children, have slighted, to a most humiliating degree, 
their moral and religious training. They have sent them to 
schools conducted by immoral, heretical, or infidel teachers, 
who, of course, paid no regard to that part of their education 
which is unspeakably the most important of all ; or who ra- 
ther might be expected to exert in this respect, a most pestif- 
erous influence. And, after this cruel treatment of their 
offspring, have appeared to be utterly surprised when they 
turned out profligates ! What other result could have been 
expected ? 

While it is granted that the primary movements in the 
great work of Christian education, are to be expected from 
the parents ; indeed, if the work be not begun in the mother's 
lap, a most important period has been suffered to pass unim- 
proved ; — yet the church has a duty to perform in this mat- 
ter which is seldom realized. It is hers, by her pastor and 
eldership, to stimulate and guide parents in this arduous and 
momentous labour ; to see that proper schools for her bapti- 
zed youth are formed or selected ; to put the Bible and sui- 
table Catechisms, and other compends of religious truth into 
their hands ; to convene them at stated intervals for instruc- 
tion, exhortation, and prayer ; to remind them from time to 
time, with parental tenderness, of their duty to confess Christ, 
and recognize their relation to his church, by their own per- 
sonal act ; and, if they fall into gross error, or open immo- 
rality, or continue to neglect religion, to exercise toward 
them, with parental affection, and yet with firmness, that 
discipline which Christ has appointed expressly for the ben- 
w2 257 



62 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ofit of all the members, and especially of the youthful mem 
bers of his covenanted family. If this plan were faithfully 
pursued with our baptized youth, I am constrained to concui 
with the pious Mr. Baxter in believing that in nineteen cases 
out of twenty, our children, consecrated to God in their in- 
fancy would grow up dutiful, sober, orderly, and serious, and 
before they reached mature age, recognise their membership 
by a personal act, with sincerity and to edification. Happy 
era ! When shall the church of God be blessed with such 
fidelity, and with such results ? 



DISCOURSE III. 

THE MODE OF ADMINISTEEING BAPTISM. 

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ? — 
Acts x. 47. 

Having endeavoured, in the preceding discourses, to show 
that the baptism of infants is a scriptural and reasonable ser- 
vice, I now proceed to inquire into the mode in which this 
ordinance ought to be administered. 

And here, it is well known, that there is a very serious "di- 
versity of opinion. On the one hand, our Baptist brethren 
believe that there is no true baptism unless the whole body 
be plunged under water. While on the other hand, we, and 
a very great majority of the Christian world, maintain that 
the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion is a method 
just as valid and lawful as any other. It will be my object, 
in the present discourse, to support the latter opinion ; or 
rather to maintain, from Scripture, and from the best usage 
of the Christian church, that baptism by sprinkling or affu- 
sion not only rests on as good authority as immersion ; but 
that it is a method decisively more scriptural, suitable, and 
edifying. 

From the very nature of this subject it will require some 
little extent of discussion to place it in a proper light, and 
some closeness of attention to apprehend and follow the ar- 
guments which may be employed. Let me then request 
from you a candid and patient hearing. If I know my own 
heart, it is my purpose to exhibit the subject in the light of 
258 



INFANT BAPTISM. 63 

truth ; and to advance nothing but that which appears to rest 
on the authority of Him who instituted the ordinance under 
consideration, and who is alone competent to declare his will 
concerning it. And, 

1. Let us attend to the real meaning of the original 
word which is employed in the New Testament to express 
this sacramental rite. 

The Greek word Bart-r^w, which we translate baptize, 
from the circumstance of its having been so constantly and so 
long the subject of earnest discussion, and from its near re- 
semblance to the English word which we employ to render 
it, (or we might rather say, its identity with that word) has 
become so familiar with the public mind, that it may almost 
be regarded as a naturalized term of our language. 

Now, we contend, that this word does not necessarily, nor 
even commonly, signify to immerse ; but also implies to 
wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with 
any liquid ; and, therefore, accords very well with the mode 
of baptism by sprinkling or affusion. 

I am aware, indeed, that our Baptist brethren, as before 
intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legit- 
imate and authorised meaning of this word, is to immerse ; 
and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part 
of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other 
manner. I can venture, my friends, to assure you, with the 
utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incor- 
rect. I can assure you, that the word which we render bap- 
tize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any 
way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can assure you, if 
the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived 
may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples 
of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not 
only may, but manifestly must signify sprinkling, perfusion 
or washing in any way. Without entering into the minute 
details of Greek criticism in reference to this term, which 
would be neither suitable to our purpose, nor consistent with 
our limits ; it will suffice to refer to a few of those passages 
of Scripture which will at once illustrate and confirm the po- 
sition which I have laid down. 

Thus, when the Evangelists tell us that the Scribes and 
Pharisees invariably " washed (in the original, baptized) 
their hands before dinner;" when we are told that, when 
they come in from the market, " except they wash, (in the 
original, 'except they baptize,') they eat not;" when we 
read of the Pharisees being so scrupulous about the " wash- 

259 



64 INFANT BAPTISM. 

ing (in the original, the 'baptising') of cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels, and tables?" when our Saviour speaks of 
his disciples being " baptized with the Holy Ghost," in man- 
ifest allusion to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost ; when John the Baptist predicted, that 
tliey should be " baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with 
fire," in reference to the Holy Ghost sitting upon each of 
them as with " cloven tongues of fire" on the same day : 
when we find the apostle representing the children of Israel 
as all baptized by a cloud passing over without touching 
them ; and also as baptized in the Red Sea, when we know 
that none of them were immersed in passing through, or, at 
most, only sprinkled by the spray of the watery walls on 
each side ; for we are expressly told that they went through 
" dry shod:" when Judas, in celebrating the Paschal supper 
with his Master, in dipping a morsel of bread on a bunch of 
herbs in the " sop" in the dish, is said, by Christ himself, 
to "baptize his hand in the dish," (as it is in the original, 
Matt. xxvi. 23.) which no one can imagine implies the im- 
mersion of his whole hand in the gravy of which they were 
all partaking; I say, when the word "baptize" is used in 
these and similar senses, it surely cannot mean in any of 
these cases to immerse or plunge. If a man is said by the 
inspired Evangelist to be baptized, when his hands only are 
washed : and if " tables" (or couches, on which they recli- 
ned at meals, as appears from the original) are spoken of as 
"baptized," when the cleansing of water was applied to 
them in any manner, and when the complete immersion of 
them in water is out of the question ; surely nothing can be 
plainer than that the Holy Spirit who indited the Scriptures, 
does not restrict the meaning of this word to the idea of 
plunging, or total immersion. 

Again : the New Testament meaning of this term appears 
from the manner in which it is applied to the ablutions of the 
ceremonial economy. The apostle in writing to the He- 
brews, and speaking of the Jewish ritual, says, " It stood 
only in meats and drinks and divers washings," (in the ori- 
ginal ' divers baptisms.') Now we know that by far the 
greater part of these " divers washings" were accomplished 
by sprinkling and affusion, and not by immersion. The 
blood of the Paschal Lamb was directed to be " sprinkled" 
on the door-posts of the Israelites, as a token of Jehovah's 
favour, and of protection from death. When they entered 
into covenant with God at Sinai, their solemn vows were 
directed to be sealed by a similar sign. After Moses 
260 ' * 



INFANT BAPTISM. 65 

had spoken every precept to all the people according to the 
law, and they had given their consent, and promised to obey : 
he took the blood of the sacritice, and water, and " sprinkled" 
both the book and the people, (Heb. ix. 19.) On the great 
day of the atonement, when the High Priest went into the 
most Holy place, he " sprinkled" the blood of the sacritice 
on the Mercy Seat, as a token of propitiation and cleansing. 
When any individual was to be cleansed, and delivered from 
legal guilt, the blood of the sacrifice was to be " sprinkled" 
upon him seven times. In like manner at other times, the 
consecrated oil was to be "sprinkled" upon him who applied 
for deliverance from pollution. 

Thus the people were to be ceremonially delivered from 
their uncleanness.* When Aaron and his sons were set apart 
to their office, they were sprinkled with blood, as a sign of 
purification. When tents or dwelling houses were to be 
cleansed from pollution, it was done among other things, by 
sprinkling them with water. When the vessels, used in do- 
mestic economy, were to be ceremonially cleansed, the object 
was effected in the same manner, by sprinkling them with 
water. (See Numbers, xix. 17 — 22.) In a few cases, and 
but a few, the mode of cleansing by plunging in water is pre- 
scribed. Now these are the " divers baptisms" of which the 
apostle speaks. It is worthy of notice that they are divers, 
(Sta^opois-). If they had been of one kind — immersion only 
— this term could not with propriety have been used. But 
they were of different kinds — some sprinkling, others pour- 
ing, some scouring and rinsing, (see Leviticus vi. 28,) and 
some plunging : but all pronounced by the inspired apostle to 
be baptism. 

But happily, the inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt 
what those "divers baptisms" were, of which he speaks. 
He singles out and presents sprinkling as his chosen and 
only specimen. " For" says he, in the 13th, 19th, and 21st 
verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by 
1 divers baptisms,' " if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the 
ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, &c. For when Moses had spoken every precept to 
all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of 
Calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hys- 

* See Exodus, xxix. 40; Leviticus, i. 3, 4,5, 8, 9, 14, and 15 chap- 
ters ; Numbers, 19th chapter, and Deuteronomy, 12th and 15th chap- 
ters. 

261 



G6 INFANT BAPTISM. 

sop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. More- 
over, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, 
and all the vessels of the ministry." If the Apostle under- 
stood his own meaning, then, it is manifest that in speaking 
of " divers baptisms," he had a principal reference to the ap- 
plication of blood and of water by sprinkling. 

In short, it is perfectly manifest, to every one competent 
to judge in the case, that the Greek words which we trans- 
late baptize and baptism, do undoubtedly signify, in a num- 
ber of cases in both the Old and New Testaments, the wash- 
ing with water, or the application of water in any way. To 
immerse, is, undoubtedly, one of the senses which may be 
applied to the words. But it is so far from being the univer- 
sal, the necessary meaning, as our Baptist brethren assert, 
that it is not even the common meaning. And I am well 
persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one of the 
greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, is borne 
out by truth when he pronounces, " That no one instance 
can be given in Scripture, in which the word which we ren- 
der baptize, does necessarily signify either to dip or plunge." 
In every case the word admits of a different sense ; and it is 
really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always 
does, and necessarily must signify immersion.* 

In like manner, if we examine the senses manifestly at- 
tached to Barttw and Bartn^w, by the best Greek classical 
writers, as shown by the ablest lexicographers and critics, 
the same result will be established ; in other words, it will 
appear that these words are used, and often used, to express 
the ideas of cleansing, pouring, washing, wetting, and ting- 
ing, or dying, as well as immersion : and, of course, that 
no certain evidence in favour of the doctrine of our Baptist 
brethren, can be derived from this source. Indeed, a late 
eminent anti-pcedobaptist writer while he strenuously main- 
tains that Bamrt^w, always signifies to immerse, acknow- 
ledges that he has " all the lexicographers and commentators 
against him in that opinion." [Carson on Baptism, p. 79.) 
How far the confidence which, in the face of this acknow- 
ledgment, he expresses, that they are all wrong, and that his 
interpretation alone is right, is either modest or well-founded, 
must be left to the impartial reader. 

* See this point set in a clear and strong light by the Rev. Dr. 
Woods, in his " Lectures on Infant Baptism ;" by the Rev. Professor 
Stuart, in the " Biblical Repository," No. 10 ; by the Rev. Professor 
Pond, of Maine, in his " Treatise on Christian Baptism," in the * Bib- 
lical Repertory,' Vol. III. p. 475, &c. &c. 
262 



INFANT BAPTISM. 67 

It is evident, then, that our Baptist brethren can gam no- 
thing by an appeal to the original word employed in the 
New Testament to express this ordinance. It decides no- 
thing. All impartial judges — by which I mean all the most 
profound and mature Greek scholars, who are neither theolo- 
gians nor sectarians — agree in pronouncing, that the term in 
question imports the application of water by sprinkling, pour- 
ing, tinging, wetting, or in any other way, as well as by 
plunging the whole body under it. 

2. There is nothing in the thing signified by baptism 
which renders immersion more necessary or proper than 
any other mode of applying water in this ordinance. 

Our Baptist brethren suppose and insist that there is some- 
thing m the emblematical meaning of baptism, which renders 
dipping or plunging the only proper mode of administering 
the ordinance. And hence nothing is more common, among 
the brethren of that denomination, than to pour ridicule on all 
other modes of baptizing, as entirely deficient in meaning and 
expressiveness. 1 am persuaded, my friends, that the slightest 
examination of the subject will convince every impartial 
inquirer that there is no solid ground for this representation. 

It is granted, on all hands, that the thing principally signi- 
fied by baptism, is the renovation and sanctification of the 
heart, by the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit. This 
was, undoubtedly, the blessing of which circumcision was an 
emblem. It signified, as the inspired Apostle tells us, " the 
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." (Colossians, ii. 
11.) " He is not a Jew," says the same apostle, " who is 
one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward 
in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and 
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
letter." (Romans, ii. 28, 29.) In like manner, baptism 
signifies the renovation of the heart by the special operation 
of the Spirit of God. It is intended ever to keep us in mind, 
by a very significant and striking emblem, that we are all by 
nature polluted and guilty, and that we stand in need of the 
pardoning and purifying grace of God by a crucified Re 
deemer. 

Now, when the inspired writers speak of imparting the 
influences of the Holy Spirit to the children of men, by what 
kind of figure is that blessing commonly expressed ? I 
answer — as every one who is familiar with the Bible will 
concur in answering — much more frequently by sprinkling 
and pouring out, than by any other form of expression. Thus 
the prophet Isaiah speaks again and again of the Spirit being 

263 



68 INFANT BAPTISM. 

poured out upon the people from on high. (Isaiah, xxxii 
15; xliv. 3.) Take a single specimen — "I will pour water 
upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; I 
will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon 
thine offspring." The prophets, Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, 
repeatedly employ the same language ; (Ezekiel, xxxix. 29. 
Joel, ii. 28, 29. Zechariah, xii. 10.) and this form of 
expression is also found more than once in the New Testa- 
ment. (Acts, ii. 17, 18; x. 45.) Indeed it seems to be the 
favourite language of the Spirit of God when speaking on this 
subject. In other places the term sprinkling is employed to 
express the same idea. Accordingly, Jehovah says, by the 
prophet Ezekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your 
idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, 
and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away 
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart 
of flesh." (Ezekiel, xxxvi. 25, 26.) And in like manner, 
the prophet Isaiah, when speaking of the coming of the 
Messiah, and the benefits accruing to the church in New 
Testament times, fortels — " So shall he sprinkle many 
nations." (Ezek. lii. 15.) Again, this divine sanctifying 
influence in its application to men, is represented by the 
Psalmist, and by the prophet Hosea, under the similitude of 
rain, which we know descends in drops, sprinkling the earth, 
and its verdant furniture. (Psalm, lxxii. 6. Hosea, vi. 3.) 
" He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass ; as 
showers that water the earth." 

But to come still nearer to the point in hand. We have 
not only seen that whenever the inspired writers wish to 
express the idea of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men, 
either to sanctify their hearts, or to furnish them with mi- 
raculous powers, the figure of "pouring out" is, in almost 
all cases, adopted, and that of immersion never; but, further, 
when they use the specific term which expresses the ordinance 
before us; when they speak of the "baptism of the Spirit," 
how do they explain it? Hear the explanation by the Master 
himself. The Saviour, after his resurrection, told his disciples, 
that " John truly baptized with water, but they should be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost" not many days from that 
time, (Acts i. 4, 5,) and directing them to remain in Jerusalem 
until this promise should be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. 
And how did the Holy Spirit baptize the people then ? By 
immersion 1 Not at all ; but by being " poured out." Ac- 
cordingly, the apostle Peter, in giving an account to his 
264 



INFANT BAPTISM. 69 

brethren of what occurred in the house of Cornelius, declares : 
44 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 
on us at the beginning, (that is at the beginning of the New 
Testament economy, on the day of Pentecost). Then remem- 
bered I the words of the Lord, how he said, John, indeed 
baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost." (Acts xi. 15, 16.) The baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, then, consisted in the pouring out, or effusion of the ' 
Holy Ghost. This was the baptism predicted by the prophets. 
This was the baptism which our Lord himself promised. 
And this was the baptism realized on the day of Pentecost. 
I ask, again, was this immersion ? Yet it was baptism. And 
here, we may add is an indubitable example of the word 
baptism being used in a sense which cannot possibly imply 
immersion. 

Surely it is not without design or meaning, that we find 
language of this kind so generally, 1 might almost say, so 
uniformly used. Can a single instance be produced from the 
word of God in which the cleansing influences of the Holy 
Spirit are symbolized by dipping or plunging into water, or 
into oil or blood? Or can a single example be found in 
which believers are represented as being dipped or plunged 
into the Holy Ghost ? No such example is recollected. 
Whenever the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit 
being imparted to the children of men, either in his sanctify- 
ing power, or his miraculous gifts, they never represent the 
benefit under the figure of immersion; but always, unless my 
memory deceives me, by the figures of " sprinkling," " pour- 
ing out," " falling," or " resting upon" from on high. Now, 
if baptism, so far as it has a symbolical meaning, is intended 
to represent the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, as all agree; it 
is evident that no mode of applying the baptismal water can 
be more strikingly adapted to convey its symbolical meaning, 
or more strongly expressive of the great benefit which the 
ordinance is intended to hold forth and seal, than sprinkling 
or pouring. Nay, is it not manifest that this mode of admin- 
istering the ordinance, is far more in accordance with Bible 
language, and Bible allusion, than any other? Surely, then, 
baptism by sprinkling or affusion, would have been treated 
with less scorn by our Baptist brethren, if they had recol- 
lected that these are, invariably, the favourite figures of the 
inspired writers when they speak of the richest covenant 
blessings which the Spirit of God imparts to his beloved 
people. Surely all attempts to turn this mode of applying 
the sacramental water in baptism into ridicule, is really 
X r 265 



70 INFANT BAPTISM. 

nothing less than shameless ridicule of the statements and the 
language of God's own word ? 

3. The circumstances attending the several cases of bap- 
tism recorded in the Neiv Testament, render it highly prob- 
able, not to say morally certain, that the immersion of the 
whole body could not have been the mode of baptism then 
commonly adopted. 

The baptism of the three thousand converts made by the 
instrumentality of Peter's preaching, on the day of Pentecost, 
is the first remarkable instance of Christian baptism which 
occurs in the New Testament history. Christ had promised, 
before he left his disciples, that he would send to them his 
Holy Spirit, and the favourite expression by which he was 
accustomed to designate this gift, was that he would pour out 
the Holy Spirit upon them. Accordingly, in ten days after 
his ascension to heaven, he was pleased, in a most extraor- 
dinary manner, to fulfil his promise. The Spirit was poured 
out with a power unknown before. And, what is remarkable, 
the apostle Peter assures the assembled multitude, that what 
they then witnessed was a fulfilment of the prediction by the 
prophet Joel, that the Holy Spirit should be imparted in a 
manner prefigured by the term pouring out, or affusion. 
Three thousand were converted under the overwhelming im- 
pression of divine truth, dispensed in a single sermon ; and 
were all baptized, and " added to the church" in a single 
day. From the short account given of this wonderful trans- 
action, we gather, that the multitude on whom this impression 
was made, was convened in some part of the temple. They 
seem to have come together about the third hour of the day, 
that is, nine o'clock in the morning, according to the Jewish 
mode of computing time. At least, when Peter rose to com- 
mence his sermon, that w r as the hour. Besides the discourse 
of which we have a sketch in the chapter containing the 
account, we are told he exhorted and testified with many 
other words. All these services, together with receiving the 
confession of three thousand converts, must unavoidably have 
consumed several hours ; leaving only four or five hours, at 
the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. But they were 
all baptized that same day. We read nothing, however, of 
the apostles taking the converts away from " Solomon's 
Porch," or wherever else they were assembled, to any river 
or stream for the sake of baptizing them. Indeed, at that 
season of the year, there was no river or brook in the imme- 
diate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which would admit of 
immersing a human being. Besides, is it likely that tills 
266 



INFANT BAPTISM. 71 

great multitude, most of whom were probably strangers in 
Jerusalem, could have been furnished with such a change of 
raiment as health and decorum required ; or that they could 
have been baptized without clothing altogether ; or remained 
on the ground, through the public exercises, in their wet 
clothes I Surely all these suppositions are so utterly impro- 
bable that they may be confidently rejected. But, above all, 
was it physically possible, supposing all the apostles to have 
officiated in the administration of this ordinance, for twelve 
men to have immersed three thousand persons in four or five 
hours ; which we have seen must have been the case, if, as 
is evident, the preaching, the examination of candidates, and 
the baptizing of the whole number took place after nine 
o'clock in the forenoon ? Those who have witnessed a series 
of baptisms by immersion know how arduous and exhausting 
is the bodily effort which it requires. To immerse a single 
person, with due decorum and solemnity, will undoubtedly 
require from five to six minutes. Of course, to immerse one 
hundred, would consume, at this rate, between nine and ten 
hours. Now, even if so much time could possibly be assigned 
to this part of the work, on the same day, which is plainly 
inadmissible, can we suppose that the twelve apostles stood, 
for nine or ten hours, themselves, in the water, constantly 
engaged in a series of efforts among the most severe and 
exhausting to human strength that can well be undertaken?* 
To imagine this, would be among the most improbable, not 
to say extravagant imaginations that could be formed on such 
a subject. Yet even this supposition, unreasonable as it is, 
falls far short of providing for even one half of the requisite 
number, The man, therefore, who can believe that the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immer- 
sion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accom- 
modating his belief to his wishes. 

With regard to the baptism of John, many of the same 
remarks are entirely applicable. Our Baptist brethren uni- 
versally take for granted that John's baptism was performed 

* " A gentleman of veracity told the writer, that he was once pre- 
sent when forty-seven were dipped in one day, in the usual way. The 
first operator began, and went through the ceremony, until he had 
dipped twenty-Jive persons ; when he was so fatigued, that he was 
compelled to give it up to the other, who with great apparent difficulty 
dipped the other twenty -two. Both appeared completely exhausted, and 
went off the ground into a house hard by, to change their clothes and 
refresh themselves." Scripture Directory for Baptism by a Lay<~ 
man, 14. ^ 



72 INFANT BAPTISM. 

by immersion ; arid on the ground of that assumption, they 
speak with great confidence of their mode of baptism as the 
only lawful mode. Now, even if it were certain that the 
forerunner of Christ had always baptized by immersion, still 
it would be little to the purpose, since it is plain that John's 
baptism was not Christian baptism. Had this been the case, 
then, it is evident, that a large part of the population of 
" Jerusalem and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan," 
would have been professing Christians. But was it so? 
Every reader of the New Testament history knows it was 
not; that, on the contrary, it is apparent from the whole 
narrative, that a great majority of those whom John baptized, 
continued to stand aloof from the Saviour. But what decides 
this point, beyond the possibility of appeal or cavil, is the 
statement in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, where we are told that some who had received John's 
baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Some opponents of this conclusion have suggested 
that in the narrative given of this transaction, (Acts xix. 1 — 6,) 
we are to consider the 5th verse, not as the language of the 
inspired historian, but as a continuation of Paul's discourse, 
as recorded in the 4th verse. Professor Stuart, in his remarks 
on the " Mode of Baptism," in the " Biblical Repository," 
(No. X. 386,) has shown conclusively that this gloss is 
wholly inadmissible; and even leads to the most evident 
absurdity. But there is no evidence, and I will venture to 
say, no probability, that John ever baptized by immersion. 
The evangelist informs us that he baptized great multitudes. 
It appears, as before suggested, that " all Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and the region round about Jordan," flocked to his 
ministry, and " were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins." Some have supposed that he baptized two mil- 
lions of people. But suppose the number to be one-twentieth 
part of this computation. The smallest estimate that we can 
consider as answering the description of the inspired historians 
is, that he baptized one hundred thousand individuals. And 
this, in about one year and a half. That is, he must have 
immersed nearly two hundred, upon an average, every day, 
during the whole of the period in question. Now, I ask, is it 
possible for human strength, day after day, for more than five 
hundred days together, to undergo such labour ? It cannot 
be imagined. The thing is not merely improbable ; it is 
impossible. To accomplish so much, it would have been 
necessary that the zealous Baptist should spend the whole of 
every day standing in the water, for a year and a half, and 
26S 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



73 



even this would have failed altogether of being sufficient, 
say again, with confidence, it is impossible. 

But that John baptized by immersion is utterly incredible 
on another account. Can we imagine that so great a multi- 
tude could have been provided on the spot with convenient 
changes of raiment to admit of their being plunged consistently 
With their health? Or can we suppose that the greater part 
of their number, would remain for hours on the ground in 
their wet clothes ? And if not, would decency have permitted 
multitudes of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the 
administration of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of 
entire nakedness ? Surely we need not wait for an answer. 
Neither supposition is admissible. 

Nor is this reasoning at all invalidated by the statement of 
one of the evangelists, that John " baptized at Enon, near 
Salim, because there was much water there ;" or, as it is in 
the original, " because there were many waters there." For, 
independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of 
water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment 
and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped 
from day to day, to witness the preaching and the baptism of 
this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed 
for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large 
encampment of men, women, and children, consisting almost 
continually of many thousand souls, continuing together for a 
number of days in succession; constantly coming and going; 
and all this in a warm climate, where springs and wells of 
water were comparatively rare and precious ; only figure to 
yourselves such an assemblage, and such a scene, and you 
will be at no loss to perceive why it was judged important to 
convene them near the banks of abundant streams of water. 
Had not this been done, they must, in a few hours, have 
either quitted the ground, or suffered real distress. 

It is evident, then, that often and confidently as the baptism 
of John has been cited as conclusive, in favour of immersion, 
it cannot be considered as affording the least solid ground foi 
such a conclusion. There is not the smallest probability that 
he ever baptized an individual in this manner. As a poor 
man, who lived in the wilderness ; whose raiment was of the 
meanest kind ; and whose food was such alone as the desert 
afforded ; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate 
vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or 
sprinkling. He, therefore, seems to have made use of the 
neighbouring stream of water for this purpose, descending its 
banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his 
x2 269 



74 INFANT BAPTISM. 

•using a handful, to answer the symbolical purpose intendea 
Dy the application of water in baptism. 

The circumstances attending the baptism of our blessed 
Saviour by John, have been often adduced by our Baptist 
brethren as strongly favouring the practice of immersion : 
but when they are examined, they will be found to afford no 
real aid to that cause. In our common translation, indeed, 
the Evangelist Matthew tells us, (ch. iii. 16,) That Jesus, 
when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, 
&c. ; and the Evangelist Mark tells us, (ch. i. 9, 1 0,) That 
Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan ; and straightway, 
coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, &c. 
This is considered by many superficial readers as decisive in 
establishing the fact that immersion must have been used on 
that occasion ; but the moment we look into the original, it 
becomes evident that the language of both the Evangelists 
imports only that Jesus, after he was baptized, went up from 
the water, that is, ascended the banks from the river. No- 
thing more is, unquestionably, imported by the terms used ; 
and this leaves the mode of administering the ordinance 
altogether undecided. Laying aside his sandals, he might 
only have stepped a few inches into the river, or he might 
have gone merely to the water's edge, without stepping into 
it at all.* 

The baptism of Paul, by Ananias, is another of the scrip 
tural examples of the administration of the ordinance in 
question, which yet affords not the smallest hint or presump- 
tion in favour of immersion ; but rather the contrary. 

We are told that Paul, the infuriated persecutor, while 
" breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disci- 
ples of the Lord," was met on his way to Damascus, and by 
the mighty power of the Saviour whom he persecuted, was 
stricken down, and fell prostrate and blind to the ground. In 
this feeble state he was lifted up, and " led by the hand, and 
carried into Damascus ; and he was there three days without 
sight, and did neither eat nor drink." In these circumstances, 
Ananias, a servant of God, is directed to go to him, and teach 
him what to do. " And Ananias," we are told, " went his 
way, and entered into the house ; and putting his hands on 
him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared 
unto thee in the way, as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou 

* " See a very luminous and satisfactory view of the record of this 
baptism, by Professor Stuart, of Andover, in the Biblical Repository 
No. X. p. 319, 320 
«70 



INFANT BAPTISM. 75 

mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost 
Ami now, why tamest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord ? And 
immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; 
and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 
And when he had received meat he was strengthened." 
(Acts, ix. and xxii. compared.) 

The attentive reader will no doubt, take notice that in this 
narrative there is not a single turn of expression which looks 
like baptizing by immersion. There is no hint that Paul 
changed his raiment; or that he and Ananias went out of the 
house to a neighbouring pond or stream. On the contrary, 
every part of the statement wears a different aspect. Paul, 
when Ananias went to him, was evidently extremely feeble. 
He was sitting or lying in the house, perfectly blind, and 
having taken no sustenance for three days. Can it be ima- 
gined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances, 
would have had him carried forth, and plunged into cold 
water, which, in his exhausted state, would have been equally 
distressing and dangerous ? It cannot be for a moment sup- 
posed. Nothing like it is hinted. Ananias simply directs 
him to "stand up and be baptized." "And immediately 
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; and he received 
sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." It was after 
the baptism, as we learn, that he received sustenance and was 
" strengthened." It would really seem as if no impartial 
reader could receive any other impression from this account, 
than that Paul stood up, in the apartment, in which Ananias 
found him, and there received baptism by pouring or sprink- 
ling on him a small quantity of that water which is applied 
in this ordinance as a symbol of spiritual cleansing. 

Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, when duly 
considered, will be found equally remote from affording the 
smallest countenance to that conclusion in favour of immer- 
sion, which has been so often and so confidently drawn 
from it. 

The eunuch was travelling on the public highway, when 
Philip met him. They had been reading and commenting 
on a prophecy of the Messiah, in which mention is made 
of his sprinkling many nations. When they came to a 
rivulet of water, the eunuch said, ' See, here is water, what 
doth hinder me to be baptized?' Philip had, no doubt, been 
explaining to him the nature, design, and obligation of this 
ordinance, or he would not have been likely to ask such a 
question. The servant of God consented to baptize him; 

271 



70 INFANT BAPTISM. 

and, as they were travelling, and probably destitute of any 
convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the 
stream, they both went down to the water, probably no fur- 
ther than to its margin ; far enough to take up a small portion 
of it to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch. The narrative, in 
the original, ascertains nothing more than that they both 
went to and from the water. In our translation, indeed, it is 
said, they both went down into the water, and came up out 
of the water. But, when we look into the original text, we 
find the strict meaning of the terms employed, to be, that 
Philip and the eunuch went down the banks to the water, 
and coming from the water, reascended the banks again, to 
the place where the chariot in which they rode had been left. 
The same form of expression is used as in the case of Peter 
and the tribute money, (Matt. xvii. 27.) " Go thou to the 
sea, and cast an hook," &c. Here we cannot suppose that 
our Lord meant to command Peter to plunge into the sea, but 
only to go to the water's edge, and cast in a hook. The 
same form of expression is also employed in many other 
passages of the New Testament, where immersion is wholly 
out of the question: As in John, ii. 12, where it is said, 
Jesus went down to Capernaum; Acts vii. 15, Jacob went 
down into Egypt; Acts xviii. 22, He went down to Antioch, 
&c. Surely, no one will dream of immersion in any of these 
cases. There is nothing, then, in any of the language here 
used, which necessarily, or even probably, implies immersion, 
At any rate, the terms employed apply equally to both 
There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that 
the eunuch was. It is said they both went to the water. 
Nor can we consider it as at all likely that, in the circum- 
stances in which they were placed as travellers, they were 
either of them immersed. It is plain, therefore, that all the 
confidence which our Baptist brethren have so often expressed, 
that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is a certain example of 
immersion, must be regarded as presenting no solid evidence 
in their favour, and as really amounting to a gross imposition 
on popular credulity. 

The next remarkable instance of baptism recorded in the 
New Testament, is that of Cornelius and his household. 
Cornelius, a " devout man, who feared God," was directed, 
in a vision, to send for Peter, the apostle, who should impart 
to him the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Peter, on 
his arrival, having ascertained, wherfore Cornelius had sent 
for him, unfolded to him, and to all who were convened in 
his house, the way of salvation. " While he was vet 
272 



INFANT BAPTISM. 77 

speaking-, the Holy Ghost fell upon all ol them which heard 
the word, then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, 
that these should not be baptized, who have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." 

In this passage, there is nothing that has the remotest ap- 
pearance of immersion. No hint is given of the candidates 
for baptism being led out of the house, to a river or pool, 
for the purpose of being dipped. The language of Peter has 
m entirely different aspect. " Can any man forbid water, 
that these should not be baptized ?" That is " Can any man 
forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be ap- 
plied by pouring or sprinkling ?" He had just spoken of 
the Holy Ghost being poured out upon them ; and what 
could be more natural than that he should apply water, the 
emblem of spiritual cleansing, in conformity with the same 
striking figure ? " They were not dipped into the Holy 
Ghost ; but the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them. 
They were not applied to the Holy Ghost ; but the Holy 
Ghost was applied to them. He " fell upon them ;" and the 
introduction of water, to be applied in a corresponding man- 
ner, was immediately authorized. 

The baptism of the jailer and his household, at Philippi, 
still more decisively leads to the same conclusion. If we 
examine the circumstances which attended this baptism, 
they will be found to preclude, not only the probability, but 
I may say with confidence, the possibility of its having been 
performed by immersion. Paul and Silas were closely con- 
fined in prison when this solemn service was performed. 
While they were engaged in " praying and singing praises 
to God," a great earthquake shook the prison to its founda- 
tion, and the bonds of the prisoners were immediately un- 
loosed. The jailer, awaking from his sleep, called for a 
light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down be- 
fore Paul and Silas, and said, " Sirs, what must I do to be 
saved ? And they said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake 
unto him the word, and to all that were in his house. And 
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." 
This whole transaction, you will observe, occurred a little 
after midnight, and in a prison, that is, in the outer prison, 
for the jailor seems to have brought them out of the dungeon, 
or " inner prison," into some other apartment of the edifice. 
For it was not until next morning, some hours after the bap- 

273 



78 INFANT BAPTISM. 

tism, that the magistrates gave the keeper permission to let 
them out of the prison. He and his family were evidently 
baptized "the same hour of the night," that is, between 
midnight (when we are expressly told the earthquake occur- 
red,) and day ; and while yet in the place of confinement. 
Now, I ask, how can we imagine it possible that the jailer 
and his family should be baptized by immersion, in the cir- 
cumstances in which they were placed ? We cannot sup- 
pose that there was a river, or a pool of water, or a baptis- 
tery within the walls of the prison, adapted to meet an occa- 
sion as unexpected as any thing could be, which had never 
occurred there before, and was never likely to occur, in like 
circumstances again. He who can believe this, must be 
ready to adopt any supposition, however extravagant, for the 
sake of an hypothesis. As little can we imagine that Paul 
and Silas would be dishonest enough to steal out of the prison 
by night, and accompany the jailer and his family to the 
river which runs near the city of Philippi, for the purpose of 
plunging them ; especially as we know, on the one hand how 
backward they were, the next morning to quit the prison, 
unless brought out by the magistrates who had illegally im- 
prisoned them : and on the other hand how much terrified 
the jailer was at the thought of the prisoners escaping from 
confinement, and of his being responsible even with his own 
life, for their safe keeping. 

In like manner, we might go over all the other cases of 
baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show that, in 
no one case have we any evidence that the ordinance was 
administered by immersion. Now, as the disciples of Christ 
baptized such great multitudes — even more, at one period 
than John ; can we imagine, if the constant, or even the 
common mode of baptising had been by plunging the whole 
body under water, and especially, if they had laid great 
stress on adherence to this mode ; can we imagine, I say, 
that amidst so many cases of baptism, some term of expres- 
sion, some incidental circumstance would not have occurred, 
from which the fact of immersion might have been clearly 
manifested, or irresistibly inferred ? One thing is certain. 
The inspired writers of the New Testament could not pos- 
sibly have regarded immersion in baptism in the same light 
in which it is regarded by our Baptist brethren. The latter, 
consider their mode of applying water, as essential to the 
ordinance. They dwell upon it with unceasing fondness, 
Introduce it into every discussion ; and loose no opportunity 
of recommending and urging it as that, without which an 
274 



IXFAXT BAPTISM. 79 

alleged baptism is a nullity ; nay, an offence to the Head of 
the Church. While the former, though speaking, directly or 
indirectly on the subject, in almost every page of the New 
Testament, and under a great variety of aspects, have not 
stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evin- 
ces that they either preferred or practised immersion in any 
case. They have stated, indeed, some facts which can 
scarcely, by possibility, be reconciled with immersion ; but 
in no instance have they made a representation which is not 
entirely reconcileable with the practice of perfusion or sprink- 
ling. On the supposition that the doctrine of our Baptist 
brethren is true, this is a most unaccountable fact ? AVhat ! 
not one evangelist or apostle, though taught by the Spirit of 
God what to say — kind enough, or wise enough, to put 
this matter beyond a doubt ? The unavoidable inference is, 
that the inspired writers did not deem the mode of applying 
water in baptism, an essential matter ; and did not think it 
necessary to state it precisely ; and, of course, that they dif- 
fered entirely from our Baptist brethren. 

4. Even if it could be proved (which we know it cannot 
be,) that the mode of baptism adopted in the time of Christ 
and his apostles, was that of immersion ; yet if that method 
of administering the ordinance were not significant of some 
truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plain- 
ly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from 
which we may depart when expediency requires it, as we 
are all wont to do in other cases, even with respect to posi- 
tive institutions. For example, the Lord's Supper was, no 
doubt, originally instituted with unleavened bread ; and this 
was, probably, at first the common custom. But as being 
leavened or unleavened had nothing to do with the design 
and scope of the ordinance ; as bread of either kind is equal- 
ly emblematical of that spiritual nourishment which it is in- 
tended to represent; most professing Christians, and our 
Baptist brethren among the rest, feel authorised to celebrate 
the Lord's Supper with leavened bread without the smallest 
scruple. 

Again ; the manner of sitting at the Lord's Supper, was, 
in conformity with the then prevailing posture at feasts, to 
recline on the elbow on a couch. There can be no doubt 
that this was the uniform posture at th econvivial table, at 
that time ; and in the narratives of the evangelists, we have 
abundant evidence that the same posture was adopted by 
our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacramental Sup- 
per. But as it was only a circumstance connected with the 

275 



80 INFANT BAPTISM. 

habits of those days, we do not feel bound; and our Baptist 
brethren among others, do not feel bound, in administering 
this ordinance, to conform to the original mode. We con- 
sider the sacrament as completely and validly dispensed, if 
bread and wine be reverently received, in commemoration 
of the Saviour's death, with any posture of the body. Nay, 
the example of our Saviour himself, plainly shows that, 
under a change of circumstances non-essential modes, orig- 
inally used, may be dispensed with. The prescribed ritual 
of the Passover required that the lamb should be eaten with 
shoes on the feet, and with staves in the hand ; but this cus- 
tom was not followed by Him or his disciples, and perhaps, 
never was observed after the entrance into Canaan. But 
was the Passover rendered either less perfect, or less useful, 
for all practical purposes, by this omission? Surely we need 
not wait for an answer. 

Now, unless it can be proved, that plunging the body into 
water, and lifting it out again, was designed to be emblemati- 
cal of something which cannot be otherwise expressed, we 
have full liberty given us by the example of our Lord him- 
self, to consider this mode as an unimportant circumstance. 
If the cleansing element of water be applied, in any reveren- 
tial mode, to the human body, the whole symbolical ex- 
pression of the ordinance is attained, provided convenience 
and decorum be duly consulted. If the cleansing or purify- 
ing quality of the element used, be the idea intended to be 
set forth in the emblem ; and if the greater part, as we have 
seen, of the typical purifications prescribed under the cere- 
monial economy were effected by sprinkling ; it is plain that 
the emblem is complete, however the cleansing element may 
be applied. 



DISCOURSE IV. 

THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. 

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ? 
Acts, x. 47. 

5. The difficulties attending the administration of bap- 
tism by immersion, in many cases, ought to satisfy us that 
this mode of administering the ordinance cannot be the only 
valid mode, and is not the most proper and edifying mode. 
276 



INFANT BAPTISM. 81 

It is perfectly evident, to every reflecting mind, that the 
obstacles which may be conceived, and which very fre- 
quently, in fact, occur, to render baptism by immersion diffi- 
cult, if not impracticable, are very many, and very serious. 
It will be sufficient to hint at a few of the more familiar and 
obvious. It is well known that some very large districts of 
country, in various, parts of our globe, are sS parched and 
dry, and streams of water so rare, or rather, in many cases, 
so unknown, for many miles together, that the means of 
immersing a human body, in any natural stream or pool of 
water, cannot possibly be obtained but with great trouble 
and expense ; a trouble and expense impracticable to a large 
portion of every community inhabiting those countries. 
There are other parts of our globe, near the polar regions, 
where, during the major portion of every year, the constant 
reign of severe frost, seals up every natural stream and foun- 
tain, and renders the immersion of a human body not merely 
difficult, but impracticable, without great labour and cost. 
Nor is this all ; even in the temperate and well watered lati- 
tudes, there are seasons of the year, often of four or five 
months continuance, when baptism by immersion is generally 
dangerous, and, in many cases, highly so, to the health, and 
even the lives of both those who administer, and those who 
receive the ordinance.* And, finally, at all seasons, persons 

* The Rev. Dr. Austin, in his answer to Mr. Merill, speaks thus — 
" Jn besieged cities, where there are thousands, and hundreds of thou- 
sands of people ; in sandy deserts like those of Africa, Arabia, and 
Palestine ; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, 
are shut up with impenetrable ice: and in severe and extensive 
droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; sufficiency 
of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured, Now, 
suppose God should, according- to his predictions, pour out plentiful 
effusions of his spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions 
or cities, should be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there 
is an absolute impossibility that they should be baptized, while there 
is this scarcity of water ; and this may last as long as they live." p. 41. 

So also, Mr. Walker, in his " Doctrine of Baptisms," (chapter 10) 
speaks of a Jew, who, while travelling with Christians, in the time of 
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, about sixty or seventy years after the 
apostles, was converted, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having 
water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, in the name of the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He recovered, and his case was repor- 
ted to the Bishop, (or pastor, there being no prelates then) who decided 
that the man was baptized, (si modo aqua denuo perfunderatur) if he 
only had water poured on him again. This record shows, not merely 
that the " difficulties" referred to, are far from being ideal ; but also 
that when the defect of the baptism by sand was attempted to be sup- 
plied it was not by any sort of immersion, but only by the pouring on 
of water 



82 INFANT BAPTISM. 

labouring under disease, can never be baptized in this mode, 
with safety, at all : and, of course, must be deprived entirely 
of the privilege of receiving this seal of the Christian cove 
nant, so reasonable in itself, and so gratifying to the pious 
mind. It is also certain, that Baptist ministers who are aged 
and infirm, can never safely officiate in baptizing in any 
case ; and wh%n they are men remarkably frail and feeble in 
body, they can never undertake, without manifest danger, to 
baptize individuals of large stature, or more than common 
corpulency. To all which may be added, that the public 
baptism of females with all the delicacy and care which can 
possibly be employed, is certainly, as thousands attest, a 
practice little in keeping with those religious feelings and 
impressions with which it is desirable that every Christian 
solemnity should be attended. 

Now, contrast all these difficulties, which, surely, form a 
mass of no small magnitude with the entire absence of every 
difficulty of baptizing by sprinkling or allusion. According 
to our plan, which, we have no doubt, is by far the most 
scriptural and edifying, baptism may be performed with 
equal ease and convenience in all countries ; at all seasons 
of the year; in all situations of health or sickness; wiih 
equal safety by all ministers, whether young or old, athletic 
or feeble ; and in all circumstances that can well be concei- 
ved. How admirably does this accord with the Gospel 
economy, which is not intended to be confined to any one 
people, or to any particular climate ; but is equally adapted, 
in all its principles, and in all its rites to every " kindred, 
and people, and nation, and tongue !" 

Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that, in consideration 
of the difficulties which have been mentioned as attending 
immersion, a large body of Baptists, in Holland, I mean 
the Mennonites, who were once warm and uncompromising 
contenders for this mode of administering baptism, at length 
gave it up, and, while they still baptize none but adults, 
have been, for more than a hundred years, in the practice of 
pouring water on the head of the candidate, through the 
hand of the administrator. They found that when candi- 
dates for baptism were lying on sick beds ; or confined in 
prison ; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health ; or in va- 
rious other unusual situations, which may be easily ima- 
gined ; there was so much difficulty, not to say, in some 
cases, a total impossibility in baptizing by plunging ; that 
they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their 
first leader, agreed to lay aside, as I said, the practice of im- 
mersion, and substituted the plan of affusion. 
278 



INFANT BAPTISM. 83 

There is one difficulty more, in reference to the mode of 
baptism by immersion, of which it is not easy to speak, on 
au occasion like the present, without appearing to intend 
ridicule of an ordinance so solemn and important. Fidelity 
to the subject, however, demands that I speak of it; and I 
trust no one will suspect me of a design to make any other 
than a perfectly grave and fair use of the matter to which I 
refer. The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the 
third, fourth, and immediately following centuries — in the 
days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Chrysostom — when, 
as all agree, the mode of baptizing by immersion was the 
most prevalent method ; there is no historical fact more per- 
fectly established, than that, whenever baptism was thus ad- 
ministered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or 
female, was entirely divested of all clothing: not merely of 
outer garments, but, I repeat, of all clothing. No exception 
was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and del- 
icate female importunately desired it. This fact is estab- 
lished, not only by the most direct and unequivocal state- 
ments, and that by a number of writers, but also by the nar- 
ration of a number of curious particulars connected with this 
practice.* Among the rest we are told of scenes of indeco- 
rum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which con- 
vinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be 
discontinued, and it was finally laid aside. Perhaps it will 
be asked, whether this fact in the history of Christian bap- 
tism is adverted to for the purpose of rellecting odium, in a 
sinister and indirect manner, on the practice of immersion ? 
I answer, by no means ; but simply for the purpose of show- 
ing that in tracing the history of baptism by immersion, we 
have the very same evidence in favour of immersing divested 
of all clothing, that we have for immersing at all : that, so 
far as the history of the church, subsequent to the apostolic 
age, informs us, these two practices must stand or fall toge- 
ther ;t and that an appendage to baptism so revolting, so im- 

* The zealous Baptist Robert Robinson, bears, on this subject, the 
following testimony : " The primitive Christians baptized naked. 
Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the au- 
thentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who cer- 
tainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no 
ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence 
does not go on the evidence of the single word, naked ; for then a 
reader might suspect allegory ; but on facts reported, and many reasons 
assigned for the practice." History of Baptism, p. 85. He then 
quotes several examples dated in the fourth century. 

t The learned Wall speaks on the subject thus : " The ancient 
Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were al 1 baptized 

279 



84 INFANT BAPTISM. 

moral, and so entirely inadmissible, plainly shows that those 
who practised it must have been chargeable with a supersti- 
tious and extravagant adoption of a mere form, which, from 
its character, we are compelled to believe was a human in- 
vention, and took its rise in the rudeness of growing supersti- 
tion, perhaps from a source still more impure and criminal. 

Besides, if the principle for which our Baptist brethren 
contend, be correct ; if the immersion of the whole body be 
essential to Christian Baptism, and if the thing signified be 
the cleansing and purifying of the individual by an ablution 
which must of necessity extend to the whole person ; it 
would really seem that performing this ceremony, divested 
of all clothing, is essential to its emblematic meaning. Who 
ever thought of covering the hands with gloves when they 
were about to be washed ; or expected really to cleanse them 
through such a covering ? No wonder, then, when the 
principle began to find a place in the church, that the sub- 
mersion of every part of the body in water, that the literal 
bathing of the whole person was essential both to the expres- 
siveness and the validity of the emblematical transaction ; no 
wonder, I say, that the obvious consequence should soon be 
admitted, that the whole body ought to be uncovered, as 
never fails to be the case, with any member of the body 
which may wish to be successfully cleansed by bathing. 
And we have no hesitation in saying, that, if we fully adop- 
ted the general principle of our Baptist brethren in relation 
to this matter, we should no more think of subjecting the 
body to that process which must, in order to its validity, be 
strictly emblematical of a complete spiritual bathing, while 
covered with clothes, than we should think, in common life, 
of washing the hands or the feet, while carefully covered 
with the articles of dress with which they are commonly 
clothed. Whereas, if the principle of Poedobaptists on this 
subject be adopted, then tlje solemn application of water to 
that part of the body which is an epitome of the whole per- 
son, and which is always, as a matter of course, uncovered, 
is amply sufficient to answer every purpose both of emblem 
and of benefit. 

naked ; whether they were men, women, or children. The proofs of 
this, I shall omit, because it is a clear case. The English Antipcedo- 
baptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr. Baxter for 
his saying that they baptized naked ; for if they had, it would have 
been no more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it bet- 
ter represented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of 
Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged 
it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes " Wall, Chap- 
tet KV. Part II 
2S0 



INFANT BAPTISM 85 

Besides, let me appeal to our Baptist brethren, by asking, 
if they verily believe that the primitive and apostolic mode of 
administering baptism was by immersion, and that this im- 
mersion was performed in a state of entire nakedness ; how 
can they dare, upon their principles, to depart, as to one 
iota from that mode ? Let them not say, that they carefully 
retain the substance, the essential characters of the plan of 
immersion. Very true. This is our plea ; and it accords 
very well with what we consider as the correct system ; but 
in the mouth of a Baptist it is altogether inadmissible. The 
institute in question is a " positive" one ; and, according to 
him, we must not depart one jot or tittle from the original 
plan. 

These considerations, strike me as affording decisive 
evidence, that a mode of baptism attended with so many 
real and formidable difficulties, cannot be of divine appoint- 
ment ; at any rate that it cannot be univeisally binding on 
the church of God ; and that laying so much stress upon 
the completeness of the submersion, is servility and supersti- 
tion. We may say of this ordinance, as our Lord said of 
the Sabbath. Baptism teas made for man, and not man 
for baptism. Where a particular mode of complying with 
a religious observance would be, in many cases, " a yoke of 
bondage," and one, too, for which no divine warrant could 
be pleaded, it would surely argue the very slavery of super- 
stition, to enforce that mode of the observance as essential to 
a regular standing in the visible family of Christ. 

6. As a further objection to the doctrine of our Baptist 
brethren in relation to the mode of baptism, let us examine 
some of the figurative language of Scripture which refers 
to this ordinance ; and especially certain passages on which 
they are accustomed to place their greatest reliance for the 
support of their cause. 

Perhaps no passages in Scripture have been more fre- 
quently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism 
by immersion than those that are found in Romans vi. 3, 4, 
and Colossians ii. 12. In the former we find the following : 
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je- 
sus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as 
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Fa- 
ther, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Cor- 
responding with this in Colossians ii. 12, the following pas- 
sage occurs : " Buried with him in Baptism ; wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." 

Y 2 281 



86 INFANT BAPTISM. 

Now, our Baptist brethren, believing and insisting that 
baptism and immersion ought to be considered, in all cases, 
as synonymous terms, take for granted that the expression, 
" Buried with him in baptism," is intended to refer to the 
resemblance between the interment of a dead body, and its 
subsequent resurrection from beneath the surface of the earth ; 
and the immersion of a baptized person entirely under the 
water, and raising him up again from beneath the surface of 
the fluid. In a word, our Baptist brethren assure us, that 
the design of the apostle in these passages is to say, that 
" the baptized person's communion with Christ in his 
death and burial, is represented by his being laid under the 
water ; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by 
his being raised out of it." In this general interpretation of 
the figure many Pcedobaptists have agreed ; and have thus 
not a little confirmed the confidence of anti-pcedobaptists in 
their cause. I am persuaded, however, that a candid exami- 
nation of the real import of the figurative language before us, 
will show that this confidence is entirely unfounded. 

The Apostle, in the preceding part of the epistle to the 
Romans, had shown that Christians are justified by faith in 
the righteousness of Christ. He proceeds in the sixth 
chapter to obviate the objection, that this doctrine tends to 
licentiousness. " What shall we say, then ? Shall we con- 
tinue in sin that grace may abound I God forbid !" He 
rejects with abhorrence the odious thought. " How shall we 
that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" He then ad- 
verts to the significance of baptism, which being the ordi- 
nance which seals our introduction into the family of Christ 
may be considered as exhibiting both the first principles of 
Gospel truth, and the first elements of christian character. 
" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" He then in- 
fers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference to the 
death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also 
with his resurrection ; and that, as in the former view, it 
teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the old life of sin ; 
so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the pursuit and prog- 
ress of the new life of righteousness. " Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life." 

The obvious design of the apostle is to illustrate the cha- 
racter and obligations of believers, from the circumstance, 
that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ's 
282 



INFANT BAPTISM. 87 

death; that as he died for sin, so they are dead, or are under 
obligations to be dead, to sin ; that is they are holy, or are, 
by their profession, obliged to be holy. " So many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
death." And this is explained by what follows. " In that 
Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin) once ; 
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon 
ve also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect 
to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." This is 
what was signified by baptism. And so believers were bap- 
tized into Christ's death : not that baptism was a symbol of 
death, or the state of the dead ; for water, or washing in wa- 
ter, never was a symbol of this. But water, used in cere- 
monial, whether by washing or sprinkling, and afterwards in 
Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknow- 
ledged necessity of purification. Now being dead or in a 
state of death to sin, is the same tiling as to be spiritually 
purified, or made holy. And this is the very thing that bap- 
tism, coming in the place of ablutions under the former 
economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or, to say all in a 
word, water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purifica- 
tion of believers, which the Apostle means to express by 
their being crucified, dead, and conformed to Christ's death. 
Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the expres- 
sion which contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an ap- 
pointed token or symbol, denotes what is signified by the 
metaphor, not the metaphor itself.* The sum of the apos- 
tle's illustration, then, so far as the point before us is con- 
cerned, is simply this — That in baptism, as a rite emblemati- 
cal of moral purification, Christians profess to be "baptized 
into the death of Christ, as well as, into (or into the hope 
of) his resurrection ; that they are dead and buried in re- 
spect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual sense: so that 
every Christian can say, with Paul — "I am crucified with 
Christ; I have been made conformable to his death; being 
dead indeed to sin, and alive to God by Jesus Christ." 

But besides all this, which is sufficient of itself to show 
how little reliance is to be placed on the gloss of this passage 
adopted by our Baptist brethren — the burial of Christ was 

* See Dr. Woods' Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 188, 189. See 
this interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and the corresponding passage in 
Colossians ii. 12, weil illustrated in the Essay on Baptism, by Greville 
JSwing, D. D. of Glasgow, and also in a Dissertation on Infant Bap 
lism, by Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. of Glasgow ; and still more recently 
by Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, p. 327. 332. 

4iOO 



88 INFANT B\PTISM. 

b* no means such as the friends of this exposition commonly 
suppose. The body of our Saviour was never buried in the 
maimer in which we are accustomed to inter human corpses, 
that is by letting it down into the bosom of the earth, and 
covering it with earth. It was placed in a tomb hewn out 
of a rock; not a tomb sunk in the earth, but hollowed out of 
a rock, above ground, and containing separate cells for the 
reception of bodies, " as the manner of the Jews was to 
bury." Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our 
Baptist brethren that the design of the Apostle is to teach the 
mode of baptism, by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it 
would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in 
fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may- 
be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Saviour 
was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no 
earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone 
which closed up the door was taken away, the body was 
distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more re- 
sembled the modern interment of a dead body among us, 
than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment 
in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which 
was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or if 
any, not more than a few inches ; admitting of free ingress 
and egress as a common inhabited room. The figure in 
question, then, does not serve the turn of our Baptist breth- 
ren ; thus affording another proof, that nothing more was 
intended by its use, than to set forth that by being baptized 
into the death of Christ, we profess to be dead and buried 
in respect to sin, without any reference whatever to the 
mode in which either the burial or the baptism might be 
performed. 

Accordingly in the verse immediately preceding that be- 
fore commented on, in the second Epistle to the Colossians, 
the following passage occurs, evidently intended to teach the 
same lesson: "In whom also ye are circumcised witli the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting; otf the body of 
the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." And 
in the verse immediately following that in which the burial 
of Christ is alluded to, the figure of circumcision as an em- 
blem of spiritual cleansing, is still pursued: "And you 
being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your 
flesh, hath he quickened together with hirn, having forgiven 
you all trespasses." Here it is plain, the same general idea 
is meant to be conveyed, as in the reference to baptism, 
which has come in the room of circumcision. In both the 
284 



INFANT BAPTISM. 89 

putting away sin ; the " putting off the sins of the flesh," is 
emblematically represented and sealed : as a man dead and 
buried is cut off from all temporal connections and indulgen- 
ces ; so the baptized man is really, or at least by profession, 
dead to sin, and in this way made conformable to the death 
of Christ in its great design and efficiency, which are to pu- 
rify to himself a peculiar people, dead to the world, dead to 
carnal ambition, and secluded from every unhallowed practice. 

Another signal example of the figurative language of Scrip- 
ture applied to baptism, occurs in 1 Corinthians, x. 1, 2. 
" Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be igno- 
rant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." Now, when we turn to the 
narrative given by Moses, in the fourteenth chapter of Ex- 
odus, we find that the Red Sea, through which the Israelites 
passed, was divided before them ; that the waters stood up 
like a wall on each side ; and that they passed through on 
dry ground. We are also informed, that the cloud by 
which their line of march was divinely directed, did not even 
fall upon them in the form of a shower, much less submerge 
them ; but that it alternately went behind them and before 
them ; now hanging in their rear, for the purpose of conceal- 
ing them from their enemies ; and then preceding them in 
their course, presenting a face of splendour to them, and a 
face of darkness to their pursuers. In all this, there was 
evidently nothing like immersion. The utmost that could 
have happened, in consistency with the inspired narrative, 
was their being sprinkled by the spray of the sea, or by 
drops from the miraculous cloud, when it passed over their 
heads. 

The last passage of the class under consideration to which 
I shall advert, is that found in the first Epistle of Peter, iii. 
20, 21 : " The long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is 
eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure where- 
unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The prin- 
ciple implied in this passage is plain ; and it affords not the 
smallest countenance to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren. 
Evey one sees, that in the case of Noah and his family, and 
of all the animals preserved with them in the ark, there was 
no immersion in the waters of the flood. Nay, this was the 
very evil from which the ark preserved them. Of course, 

285 



90 INFANT BAPTISM. 

whatever else the passage may prove, it is impossible that 
it should be legitimately considered as favouring baptism by 
plunging the whole body under water. 

7. Further ; that immersion is not necessary in baptism ; 
and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is superstition, 
appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance 
and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending, 
not on the physical influence of water, or upon the quantify 
of it employed, but on its symbolical meaning, and on the 
blessing of God upon its application as a symbol. There 
has always been a tendency in human nature to lay more 
stress than the Bible warrants upon outward forms : and to 
imagine that external rites have a virtue inherent in them- 
selves, by which their recipients are of course savingly bene- 
fitted. It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants to 
be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism, 
and the other appointed rites of our religion, when admin- 
istered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy ; a 
sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are ad- 
ministered. This we consider as a superstitious and dange- 
rous error. We believe that no external ordinance has any 
power in itself; but that its power to benefit those who re- 
ceive it depends altogether upon the influence of the Holy 
Spirit of God, making it effectual ; and that this influence 
may accompany or follow the ordinance, whatever may be 
the outward form of its administration. If, indeed, Ave had 
reason to believe that the benefit of baptism was caused by 
the physical influence of water on any or every part of the 
body, and depended upon that influence : if the least intimation 
of this kind were given us, either by the word of God, or the 
nature of the case ; it would be wise to insist on a rigorous 
adherence to that form. But as the benefit of the ordinance 
has no connection, so far as we know, with the operation ot 
water on the animal frame ; but is the result, solely, of a di- 
vine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem ; and as 
the word of God has no where informed us of the precise 
mode in which that emblem shall be applied — we infer that 
the divine blessing may attend upon any mode of applying 
it. The language of our blessed Saviour on a memorable 
occasion is full of instruction on this subject. In order to 
give his disciples a striking lesson both of humility and pu- 
rity, he condescended, on a certain evening when they were 
assembled under solemn circumstances, to wash their feet. 
Simon Peter, when his Master came to him, like too many 
at the present day, misunderstanding the nature and signifi- 
2«6 



INFANT BAPTISM. 91 

cance of the symbolical action, at first strongly objected, and 
said, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered, 
M If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." To which 
Peter, in the fulness of his fervent zeal, replied, "Lord, not my 
feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus, however, 
meaning to convey the idea that the whole action was symboli- 
cal, and that the application of water to any part of the body 
was abundantly sutlicient, rejoins to Peter. "He that is wash- 
ed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit ; 
as much as to say, " It is not the physical ablution, but the 
symbolical meaning, to which I now wish to call your atten- 
tion ; and for this purpose the application of water to the feet 
only, carries with it all the fulness of meaning, and all the 
richness of benefit, that could have resulted from the most 
plentiful application of it to the whole frame." 

8. Another, and in my view, conclusive reason for believ- 
ing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in insisting that no 
baptism unless by immersion is valid, is that the native ten- 
dency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse. The 
tendency here alleged has been often observed and lamented 
by serious people, as likely to be connected with a false hope 
and to destroy the souls of multitudes. Facts in support of 
this remark have fallen under my own painful observation. 
I have known many Baptists who appeared to feel as if there 
was some inherent efficacy in being " buried under the water," 
and that those who submitted to that self-denying rite, were, of 
course, real Christians. They have evidently appeared to 
think that that was the great step in religion; and that, hav- 
ing taken it, all was secure. Now, I contend, that this is the 
natural tendency of the Baptist doctrine ; that their laying 
so much stress upon "going under the water," and holding 
it up, with unceasing zeal, to the popular view, as the great 
distinguishing, and indispensable badge of discipleship, is 
unavoidably, adapted to betray " unwary souls" into a delu 
sive confidence. There is no disposition in depraved human 
nature more deeply inwrought, or more incessantly operative, 
than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for 
securing the divine favour. It is this disposition which has 
led to all that enormous mass of superstitious observances 
which distinguishes the Papal system, and which we have 
every reason to believe is built upon by millions, as the foun- 
dation of hope, instead of Christ. Whenever, therefore, any 
external rite becomes the grand distinction of a sect, and the 
object of something approaching to sectarian idolatry, we 
may be sure there exists not only the danger, but the actual 

287 



92 INFANT BAPTISM. 

commencement, to some extent, of that superstitious reliance 
which he who has not learned to fear, " knows nothing oi 
the human heart yet as he ought to know." 

That this suggestion has something more than mere fancy 
on which to rest, is evident from facts of recent and most 
mournful occurrence. A large and daily increasing sect has 
arisen, within a few years, in the bosom of the Baptist de 
nomination which maintains the delusive and destructive doc- 
trine, that baptism is regeneration; that no man can be re- 
generated who is not immersed ; and that all, without excep- 
tion, who have a historical faith, and are immersed, are of 
course, in a state of salvation. This pernicious heresy, so 
contrary to the plainest principles and facts of the word of 
God, and so manifestly adapted to destroy the souls of all 
who believe it, has been propagated to a melancholy extent, 
by a plausible, reckless, and impious demagogue, and is sup- 
posed to embrace one half of the Baptist body in the western 
country, besides many in the east. In short, the Baptist 
churches, in large districts of country, are so rent in pieces, 
and deluded by the miserable impostor referred to, that their 
prospects, for many years to come, are not only gloomy, but 
without a special interposition t)f the King of Zion in their 
favour, altogether desperate. 

Now I maintain that this wretched delusion is by no means 
an unnatural result of the doctrine and practice of our Bap- 
tist brethren, in regard to the baptismal rite. Multitudes of 
them, I know, reject and abhor the heresy in question as 
much as any of us. But have they duly considered, that it 
seems naturally to have grown out of their own theory and 
practice in regard to baptism ; their attaching such a dispro- 
portioned importance to the mode of administering that ordi- 
nance ; often, very often, directing the attention of the people 
more to the river than the cross ; excluding all from Chris- 
tian communion, however pious, who have not been immer- 
sed ; and making representations which, whether so intended 
or not, naturally lead the weak and the uninformed to con 
sider immersion as a kind of talisman, always connected with 
a saving blessing? This, I sincerely believe, is the native 
tendency of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, although 
they, I am equally confident, neither perceive nor admit this 
to be the case. If pious Christians who have not been im- 
mersed cannot be admitted to communion in the church below, 
there would seem to be still more reason for excluding them 
from the purer church above. And so far as this principle 
is received and cherished, though far from being alike mis- 
288 



INFANT BAPTISM. 93 

chievous in all cases, it can scarcely fail of predisposing many 
minds in favour of that awful delusion, by which we have 
reason to believe that not a few, under its higher workings 
have been blinded, betrayed, and lost. 

9. Finally ; that immersion cannot be considered, to say 
the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from the 
history of this ordinance. 

It is not denied that, for the first few centuries after Christ, 
the most common mode of administering baptism, was by- 
immersion. But it is maintained that affusion and sprinkling 
were also practised, and when used, were considered as per- 
fectly valid and sufficient. Of this the proof is so complete 
and indubitable, that no one really acquainted with the early 
history of the church, will think, for a moment, of calling it 
in question. The learned If'a/J, whose " History of Infant 
Baptism" is generally considered, by competent judges, as 
one of the most profound and faithful works extant, on the 
subject before us ; after showing conclusively that Pcedo- 
baptists ought not to refuse the admission, that baptism by 
dipping was the most prevalent mode, even in the western 
church, for a number of centuries after Christ; goes on to 
remark that, on the other hand, the Antipcedobaptists will be 
quite as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant, that in 
cases of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of a sufficient 
quantity of water, or any such extraordinary occasion, bap- 
tism by the affusion of water on the face, was, by the an- 
cients, counted sufficient baptism. Of the testimony which 
he offers in support of this statement, a specimen will be pre- 
sented.* 

Eusebius states, (Book 6, chapter 43,) on the authority of 
preceding writers, that Novatian being sick, and near death, 
as was supposed, was baptized on his bed by affusion. He, 
however, recovered, and was afterwards ordained to the 
work of the ministry. And although some questioned, 
whether a man who had been brought to make a profession 
of religion only on a sick bed, and when he considered him- 
self as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this 
doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that 
the baptism itself was incomplete ; but on the principle, that 
he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, 
ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence 
and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable. 

Of the character of Cyprian, who flourished in the former 

* Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 352, &c. 
Z 289 



94 INFANT BAPTISM. 

part of the third century, enough has been said in a preced- 
ing discourse. A certain Magnus, a country minister, con- 
sulted him on the question, whether those who had been in- 
troduced into the Christian Church, by baptism on their sick 
beds, and, of course, by affusion or sprinkling, ought to be 
baptized again, if they recovered? Cyprian's answer to 
this question is as follows : 

"You inquire, my dear son, what I think of such as at- 
tain grace in time of sickness and infirmity : whether they 
are to be accounted lawful Christians, because they have not 
been washed all over with the water of salvation, but have 
only had some of it poured on them. In which matter I 
would use so much modesty and humility, as not to pre- 
scribe so positively, but that every one should enjoy the 
freedom of his own thought, and do as he thinks best. I do, 
however, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge 
thus : That the divine favours can in no wise be mutilated or 
weakened, so that any thing less than the whole of them is 
conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full 
and complete faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver. 
For, in the sacrament of salvation, the contagion of sin is not 
washed off in the same manner as the filth of the body is in 
a carnal and secular bath. It is entirely in a different way 
that the heart of a believer — it is after another fashion that 
the mind of man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of 
salvation, through the indulgence of God, when necessity 
compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, con- 
veys the whole benefit to those who believe. Nor let any 
be moved by the fact, that the sick, when they are baptized, 
are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scripture says, 
by the prophet Ezekiel, (chapter xxxvi. 25, 36,) " I will 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from 
all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you ; a 
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
within you." It is also said in the book of numbers, (chap, 
xix.) " And the man which shall be unclean until the even- 
ing, shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh 
day, and he shall be clean. But if he shall not be purified 
on the third day, and on the seventh day, he shall not be 
clean, and that soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the 
water of aspersion hath not been sprinkled upon him." And 
again, the Lord spake unto Moses, in the book of Numbers, 
(chap viii.) " Take the Levites from among the children of 
Israel, and cleanse them ; and thus shalt thou do unto them 
to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of purifying upon them.' 



INFANT BAPTISM. 95 

And again, " the water of aspersion is purification." From 
which it appears that sprinkling is sufficient instead of im- 
mersion ; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound 
faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver, it is perfect 
and complete." 

From these passages, as well as from a number of others, 
which might be quoted, found in the works of Cyprian, it is 
evident, that, in a little more than one hundred and fifty 
years from the death of the last apostle, cases of baptism by 
perfusion or sprinkling had notoriously, and in repeated in- 
stances, occurred ; that such examples were found among 
the heretics, as well as in the orthodox church; that a man 
so learned and pious as the venerable Cyprian, was de- 
cisively of the opinion that they were to be justified; and, 
finally, that he considered this as a point concerning which 
Christians were at liberty to entertain their own opinion, and 
to do as they judged best. Plainly implying that he did not 
consider it at all as an essential matter. 

Origen was contemporary with Cyprian. He wrote in 
the Greek language. It was his vernacular tongue ; and he 
was, probably, the most learned man of the century in which 
he lived. This venerable Christian father, commenting on 1 
Kings, xviii. 33, in which we read of Elijah's ordering water 
to be poured on the burnt sacrifice, tells us that he bap'ized 
the wood on the altar. Was not Origen a good judge of the 
meaning of a Greek word? Can we imagine that he would 
have used the word baptize in this sense, if he had regarded 
immersion as its exclusive meaning? 

When Laurentius, a Roman deacon, about the middle of 
the third century, was brought to the stake to suffer martyr- 
dom, a soldier who had been employed to be one of his exe- 
cutioners, professed to be converted, and requested baptism 
from the hands of him whom he had been engaged to assist 
in burning. For this purpose a pitcher of water was 
brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of execution.* 
In circumstances so solemn as these, surely no conscientious 
man would have sported with a divine ordinance, or sub- 
jected it to any essential mutilation. It was, doubtless, 
deemed a sufficient mode of administering baptism. 

Gennadius, a distinguished ecclesiastic of Marseilles, in 
the fifth century, speaks of baptism as administered in the 
French church indifferently, by either immersion or affusion, 
or sprinkling. For having said, " We believe the way of 

* Walfridius Strabo, De Rebus Ecclesiast. as quoted by Wall. 

291 



96 INFANT BAPTISM. 

salvation to be open only to baptized persons;" he adds, 
"except only in the case of martyrdom, in which all the 
sacraments of baptism are completed." Then, to show how 
martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, " The per- 
son to be baptized, owns his faith before the priest ; and 
when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. 
The same does a martyr before the heathen judge. He also 
owns his faith; and when the question is put to him, makes 
answer. The one, after his confession is either wetted with 
the water, or else plunged into it; and the other, is either 
wetted with his own blood, or plunged into the fire." This 
language plainly evinces that in the time of Gennadius, both 
modes of baptism were in use and deemed equally valid. 

Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are well known as 
two learned ecclesiastics of the twelfth century. In their 
time it is evident that both plunging and affusion were used 
in the churches of Italy, in the administration of baptism. 
Aquinas, in writing on the subject, expresses himself thus : 
•' Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by 
affusion of water, or by sprinkling with it. But it is the 
safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most 
common custom." On the other hand, his contemporary, 
Bonaventura, observes, " The way of affusion in baptism 
was probably used by the apostles, and was, in his time, 
used in the churches of France, and some others;" but re- 
marks, " The method of dipping into the water is the more 
common, and therefore the fitter and safer." 

The Synod of Angiers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping 
and pouring as indifferently used ; and blames some igno- 
rant priests, because they dipped or poured on water, but 
once; and at the same time declaring that the general custom 
of the church was to dip, or to pour on water three tunes. 
The Synod of Langres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or 
perfusion only. " Let the priest make three pourings or 
sprinklings of water on the infanVs head," &c. The 
Council of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both 
modes were constantly practised. Their language is, " The 
child is thrice either dipped or wetted with water." Fifteen 
years afterwards, in the Agenda of the Church -of Mentz, 
published by Sebastian, there is found the following direc 
tion : " Then let the priest take the child on his left arm, 
and holding him over the font, let him, with his right hand, 
three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on 
the child's head, so that the water may wet its head and 
shoulders." Then they give a note to this purpose; that 
292 



INFANT BAPTISM. 97 

immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, 
and have been used, in the church ; that this variety does not 
aitcr the nature of baptism ! and that a man would do ill to 
break the custom of the church for either of them. But they 
add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring 
on of water. " For suppose," say they, " the priest be old 
and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands ; or the weather 
be very cold ; or the child be very infirm ; or too big to be 
dipped in the font ; then it is much fitter to use affusion of 
the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles 
baptizing three thousand at a time ; and the instance of 
Laurentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of — and add, 
" That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick, 
and another for the healthy ; one for children, and another 
for bigger persons ; it is better that the administrator of this 
sacrament do observe the safest way, which is, to pour wa- 
ter' thrice ; unless the custom be to the contrary." (Wall, 
Part II. chapter ix. p. 360, 361.) 

One more historical record, which though apparently in- 
considerable in itself, is, in my view, decisive, shall close 
the present list of testimonies. It is one referred to in a for- 
mer discourse, when speaking of Infant baptism. I mean 
the undoubted fact, that the Waldenses, those far-famed and 
devoted witnesses of the truth, who maintained, during the 
darkness and desolation of the Papacy, " the testimony of 
Jesus," very soon after the Reformation opened, approached 
with the most cordial friendliness, the Reformed churches of 
Geneva and France; recognised them as sisters in the Lord; 
received ministers from them ; and maintained with them 
the most affectionate communion. Now it is certain that, 
at that time, in the churches of both Geneva and France, 
the baptism of infants, and the administration of the ordi 
nance by sprinkling, were in constant use. On such an 
incontestable fact, the argument is this : The Waldenses 
either baptized by sprinkling or by immersion. If by 
sprinkling, an important testimony is gained in favour of 
that mode, from ecclesiastical history. If by immersion, 
they plainly laid no such stress upon the mode as our Bap- 
tist brethren now do ; since they were willing to commune 
with, and to receive ministers from, churches which were in 
the habit of using sprinkling only. In my view, as I said, 
this argument is decisive. We know that the Waldenses 
habitually baptized infants ; but in what mode they admin- 
istered the ordinance is not quite so certain. But one thing 
is unquestionable ; and that is, that those pious witnesses 
z2 293 



98 INFANT BAPTISM. 

for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the 
mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreser- 
ved communion with those who practised aspersion. 

These testimonies, and many more to the same purpose, 
which might be presented if it were necessary, must, it ap- 
pears to me, satisfy every impartial mind, that, from the 
days of the apostles down to the Reformation, affusion, and 
sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in 
constant use ; that some of the gravest and most soberminded 
writers, have firmly defended the two former, as well as the 
latter; that the strong arguments in favour of affusion or 
sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, 
distinctly appreciated ; and that it has ever been considered 
as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be 
conscientiously preferred. 

Suffer me now to close this discussion by presenting two 
or three practical inferences from the view which has been 
given of this latter part of the subject. And, 

1. If our statement of evidence as to the mode of baptism 
be correct, then the conduct of our Baptist brethren, in not 
only denying to the infant seed of believers all right to mem- 
bership in the church, but also making immersion indispen- 
sable to a valid baptism, are chargeable with taking ground 
which is plainly unscriptural, and with dividing the body of 
Christ, for a mere uncommanded circumstance ; a circum- 
stance in regard to which all reasoning, and all history are, 
on the whole against them. We do not deny that the bap- 
tisms of these brethren are valid ; but we do deny that they 
rest upon any more solid ground than ours ; and we are per- 
suaded that, without the least authority, they lay on the re- 
cipients of baptism " a yoke of bondage," which has no 
warrant from the word of God ; and which the whole genius 
of the Gospel forbids. Surely, if the inspired writers had re- 
garded immersion in the same light with our Baptist brethren, 
we should have had some explicit statements on this subject 
in the instructions given to the churches in the infancy of 
their New Testament course. And, surely, the attempt to 
lay burdens which the Spirit of God has no where authori- 
zed, ts to incur the guilt imputed to those who " add to" the 
things which are contained in the book of life. On this 
subject I feel that it is no longer our duty to content our- 
selves with standing on the defensive. Our opponents in this 
controversy, I verily believe, are chargeable with " teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men;" and, of course, 1 
consider them as equally sinning against the Head of the 
Church, and against " the generation of the righteous." 
294 



INFANT BAPTISM. 99 

2. These things being so, we may see how the conduct 
of some of our Baptist brethren, in particular states of the 
church, ought to be regarded by the friends of Zion. The 
conduct to which I refer is, their having so often intruded 
into churches in which some religious attention has existed, 
and in which scarcely a family of their own denomination 
was to be found ; and when the minds of many individuals 
were anxious respecting their eternal interests, immediately 
broaching the controversy respecting infant baptism, and 
immersion, and distressing the consciences of serious inqui- 
rers — not with the great and momentous question, " what 
they shall do to be saved ?" but — before their minds are at 
all settled as to their personal hope in Christ, or their fitness 
for any sacramental seal; perplexing them with the contro- 
versy about an external rite, which they themselves grant 
is not essential to salvation. I have personally known such 
proceedings to occur with a frequency as wonderful as it 
was revolting; and with an obtrusive zeal worthy of a better 
cause. Young and timid consciences have been distressed, 
if not with the direct assertion, at least by the artful insin- 
uation, that their particular mode of baptism was all in all , 
that there could be no safe Christianity without it. The 
river, the river, really seemed, by some, to be placed in the 
room of the Saviour I 

There is something in all this so deeply offensive to every 
enlightened and judicious Christian: which involves so 
much meanness ; and which manifests so much more con- 
cern for the enlargement of a sect, than the salvation of 
souls, that it is difficult to speak of it in terms of as strong 
reprobation as it deserves, without infringing on the limits 
of Christian decorum and respectfulness. It is conduct of 
which no candid and generous mind, actuated by the Spirit 
of Christ, will ever be guilty. And, I am happy to add, it 
is conduct in which many belonging to the denomination to 
which I allude, have souls too enlarged and elevated to allow 
themselves to indulge. 

3. Once more ; let us all be careful, my Christian friends, 
as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear 
" returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ec- 
clesiastical controversy. However other denominations may 
treat us, let us never be chargeable with treating them in an 
unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to 
differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in 
error ; in important and highly mischievous error. But 
what then ? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us, 



100 INFANT BAPTISM. 

therefore, love them, and, however they may treat us, treat 
them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare. 
Let us never indulge a spirit of unhallowed proselytism. 
Let us never employ any other weapons against them than 
those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Instead of 
" doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come 
envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputings ;" let 
us follow after patience, forbearance and charity ; ever re- 
membering that all who really belong to Christ, however 
they may differ in externals, are "one body in Him, and 
members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued 
»vith the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth ; 
and may all that we do be done with charity ! Amen ! 



29<i 






( ioi ) 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

(Note A.) 

GIVING A NAME IN BAPTISM. 

In administering the rite of circumcision, it was custo- 
mary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the 
circumstances attending the circumcision of John the Baptist, 
as related in the gospel according to Luke, i. 59 — 64 ; and 
also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Saviour, 
as found recorded in the next chapter of the same gospel. 
The same practice probably existed, from the earliest period 
of the New Testament church, in the administration of bap- 
tism. It makes, however, no necessary, or even important 
part of the rite. A baptism administered without a name, 
would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced ; 
and there is nothing in the essential nature of the case, 
which would forbid a name given to a child in baptism being 
reconsidered and altered afterwards. Yet, inasmuch as a 
child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new 
member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in 
common, for obvious reasons, to be introduced and known 
under some name, so that each child may be distinguished, 
and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a 
nameless member into any society, would be both unreason- 
able and inconvenient. Moreover, it is of great conse- 
quence, both to civil and religious society, that the birth and 
baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books. 
The formation of this record requires, it is evident, the use 
of a name ; and after the name is adopted and recorded in 
this public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of 
the name, and tampering in a corresponding manner, with 
the public register would lead to endless confusion and mis- 
chief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train of 
reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced id 
baptism ought, in general, to be carefully retained, without 
subtraction or addition. Sometimes, indeed, the civil law 
requires such registers to be made and preserved, in regard 
to every birth and baptism. Where this is the case, there 
is, evidently, an additional reason for adhering strictly to 
the name announced in baptism, recorded in the appropriate 

297 



102 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

register, and thus brought under official notice, and recorded 
as the property of the state. See a number of curious ques- 
tions proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed 
in baptism, in the Politicce Ecclesiasticx of the learned Gis- 
bertus Voetius. Tom. I. p. 714 — 724. 



(Note B.) 

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 

This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined 
to the Roman Catholics, in whose system it may without 
impropriety be said to be indigenous ; but is also frequently 
found in the pulpits and manuals of some Protestants, in 
the midst of whose general principles, it ought to be regard- 
ed as a poisonous exotic. 

I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants, 
in its most objectionable form, appears to be this :— that the 
spiritual change which the Scriptures designate by the term 
regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the 
rite of baptism, when duly administered ; that, on the one 
hand, every person, infant or adult, who has been baptized 
by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person ; and that, 
on the other, every person who has not been baptized, 
however deep or mature his penitence and faith, is still un- 
regenerate. In short, the position is, that the inward grace 
of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of 
baptism ; that they are inseparable ; that the one cannot exist 
without the other ; that he who has been thus regenerated, 
if he die without falling from grace, is certainly saved ; that 
baptism is essential to salvation ; and that to call by the 
name of regeneration any moral change, from the love of 
sin to the love of holiness, which takes place either before 
or after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd. This, as I 
understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop 
Tomline, Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of 
other writers, of equal conspicuity, in the church of En- 
gland, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal 
church in our own country. 

This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to Scripture ; con- 
trary to experience ; contrary to the declared opinion of the 
most wise, pious, and venerated divines even of the Episco- 
pal denomination ; and adapted to generate the most danger- 
298 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 103 

ous errors with regard to Christian character, and the Gospel 
plan of salvation. 

1. It is contrary to Scripture. Without regeneration, the 
Scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom 
of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross un- 
doubtedly entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to 
credit our Lord's express declaration. Yet this penitent, 
believing malefactor was never baptized, therefore he was 
regenerated without baptism ; and of course, regeneration 
and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again, Simon 
Magus received the outward and visible ordinance of bap- 
tism, with unquestionable regularity, by an authorized ad- 
ministrator ; yet who will venture to say, that he received 
the " inward and invisible grace" signilied and represented 
in that ordinance ? He was evidently from the beginning a 
hypocrite, and remained, after baptism, as before " in the 
gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Therefore 
the outward and sensible sign, and the inward and invisible 
grace are not in all cases, or necessarily, connected. Again; 
it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian 
eunuch, the Philippian jailor, &c. " believed with the heart," 
and were, consequently, brought into a state of acceptance 
with God before they were baptized, But we are told (John 
i. 12, 13,) that as many as believe have been " born of God," 
and made the "sons of God." Of course, regeneration ma?/ 
take place, in the case of adults, ought to take place, and in 
these cases, did take place, before baptism ; and, conse- 
quently, is not the same thing with baptism, or inseparably 
connected with that rite. Once more ; we are assured in 
Scripture, that " he who is born of God, or regenerated, doth 
not commit sin, (that is, deliberately or habitually,) for his 
seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born 
of God;" and farther, that "every one that loveth is 'born 
of God' and knoweth God;" and that " whosoever believ- 
eth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But can it be 
said that this character belongs to all who are baptized ? Or, 
that none who are unbaptized manifest that they possess it? 
Surely no one in his senses will venture to make the asser- 
tion. Therefore a man may be " born of God" before he is 
baptized, and, consequently, the administration of the out- 
ward ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in 
the word of God regeneration, are not always connected. 

2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as 
it is to Scripture. "It is asserted," says an eminent divine 
of the church of England, now living — " It is asserted, that 

299 



104 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably 
takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion 
be well founded, the spiritual change in question will in- 
variably take place in every adult at the identical moment 
when he is baptized ; that is to say, at the very instant when 
the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the 
baptismal water ; at that precise instant, his understanding 
begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his af- 
fections to be purified. Hitherto he has walked in darkness ; 
but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he has passed from dark- 
ness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like 
sleep of trespasses and sins ; but now he awakes, and rises 
from the dead, Christ himself giving him life. Hitherto he 
has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance, and spiritual con- 
fusion ; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit 
of God, for they are foolishness unto him : but now he is 
created after God in righteousness and true holiness ; being 
in Christ he is a ' new creature ;' having become spiritual, 
the things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to 
him ; he knows them because they are spiritually discerned. 
Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneration is de- 
scribed by the inspired writers. What we have to do, there- 
fore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every 
baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably 
found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his 
soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so un- 
equivocally set forth in the above mentioned texts of Scrip- 
ture."* We need not dwell long on the inquiry. The fact 
is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in 
admitting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as 
the Arminian advocates of this doctrine invariably do say, 
that those who are once regenerated may fall from grace, and 
manifest a most unhallowed temper This is not the ques- 
tion. The question is, does experience evince, that every 
subject of baptism, who has reached an age capable of mani- 
festing the Christian character, does, at the moment of receiv- 
ing the baptismal water, show that he is the subject of that 
regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by which " old 
things are passed away, and all things become new in the 
Lord ?" No one who has a particle of intelligence or can- 
dour can imagine that any such fact exists ; but if it do not, 
then the doctrine under consideration falls of course. 

3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to 

300 Faber's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 145, 146. 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105 

the declared opinion of the most pious, judicious, and vene- 
rable Protestant divines, including those oi the very highest 
authority in the church of England. Nothing can be more 
certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly 
taught that baptism is a sign only of regeneration, and that 
the thing signified might or might not accompany the ad- 
ministration of the outward ordinance, according as it was 
received worthily or otherwise. In support of this assertion, 
the most explicit quotations might be presented from the 
writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates, Cran- 
mer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper ; and after them from the 
writings of the eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenant, Hall, 
Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins, Tillotson, Beveridge, 
Burnet, Seeker, and a host of other divines of the English 
church, of whose elevated character it would be little less 
than an insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer 
testimony. All these men declare in the most solemn man- 
ner, against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the 
sense which we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call 
to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of 
Archbishop Cranmer to the present hour, who had the least 
claim to the character of an evangelical man, who did not re- 
pudiate the doctrine which I am now opposing ; and not a 
few of them denounce it as Popish, and adapted to subvert 
the whole system of vital and spiritual religion. 

4. The last argument which I shall urge against the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration, is, that it is adapted to ge- 
nerate the most fatal errors with regard to the Gospel plan 
of salvation. 

So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is, 
to beget a superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an exter- 
nal ordinance ; to lower our estimate of that inward spiritual 
sanctification which constitutes the essence of the Christian 
character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that spiritual 
change of heart, of which the Scriptures speak so much, and 
for which the most holy and eminent servants of Christ 
have, in all ages, contended. The truth is, the doctrine now 
under consideration is the very same in substance, with the 
doctrine of the opus operatum of the Papists, which all 
evangelical Protestants have been opposing for more than 
three hundred years, as a mischievous delusion. Accor- 
dingly, the Popish character and fatal tendency of this error 
have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and 
other pious divines of the church of England, as well as by 
many of the same denomination in this country. 

2 A 301 



106 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

Further ; if regeneration, which is the commencement of 
holiness in the soul, is always communicated in baptism, 
then it follows, as, indeed, those who entertain this doctrine 
distinctly avow, — that baptism invariably places its subject in 
a state of salvation ; so that every baptized person who dies 
immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is in- 
fallibly sure of entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doc- 
trine were fully believed, would not every thinking, anxiou? 
parent refrain from having his child baptized in infancy, and 
reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the 
approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing pass- 
port to glory ? Would it not be wise in every adult who 
may be brought to a knowledge of the Saviour, from Pagan- 
ism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour 
of his life, that he might be sure of departing in safety ? This 
is well known to have been one of the actual corruptions ot 
the fourth century, growing out of the very error which I am 
now opposing. "It was the custom of many," says Dr. 
Mosheim, " in that century, to put off their baptism till the 
last hour ; that thus immediately after receiving by this 
rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and 
spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." This is 
no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the 
doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious 
theory to take full possession of the mind, would it not be 
natural that a tender parent should anxiously desire his child 
to die immediately after baptism ; or even, in a desperate 
case, to compass its death, as infallibly for its eternal benefit? 
And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death 
of every adult, immediately after he had received baptism, 
believing that then " to die would certainly be gain ?" In 
fine, I see not, if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating and 
saving efficacy attends every regular baptism — I see not how 
we can avoid the conclusion, that every Pagan, whether child 
or adult, that can be seized by force, and however thought- 
less, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the rite of bap- 
tism, is thereby infallibly made " a child of. God, and an in- 
heritor of the kingdom of heaven ?" 

These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to 
flow from the theory in question, afford sufficient evidence 
that it is an unscriptural and pernicious error, even if no 
other means of refutation could be found. 

It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view, 
to countenance the doctrine which I am opposing, is found 
in some of the early Fathers. Some of them employ terms 
302 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107 

which would imply, if interpreted literally, that baptism and 
regeneration were the same thing. But the reason of this is 
obvious. The Jews were accustomed to call the converts to 
their religion from the Gentiles little children, and their in- 
troduction into the Jewish church, a new birth, because they 
were brought, as it were, into a new moral world. Accord 
inulv, circumcision is repeatedly called in Scripture "M# 
covenant,''' 1 because it was the sign of the covenant. After 
wards, when baptism, as a Christian ordinance, became 
identified with the reception of the Gospel, the early writers 
and preachers began to call this ordinance regeneration, and 
sometimes illumination, because every adult who was bap- 
tized, professed to be born of God, illuminated by the Holy 
Spirit. By a common figure of speech, they called the sign 
by the name of the thing signified. In the truly primitive 
times this language was harmless, and well understood ; bui 
as superstition increased, it gradually led to mischievous 
error, and became the parent of complicated and deplorable 
delusions. 

II. But there is another view of the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, which is sometimes taken, and which, though 
less pernicious than that which has been examined, is still, I 
apprehend, fitted to mislead, and, of course, to do essential 
mischief. It is this : That baptism is that rite which marks 
and ratifies the introduction of its subject into the visible 
kingdom of Christ; that in this ordinance the baptized person 
is brought into a new state or relation to Christ, and his 
sacred family ; and that this new state or relation is desig- 
nated in the Scripture by the term regeneration, being in- 
tended to express an ecclesiastical birth, that is, being 
"born" into the visible kingdom of the Redeemer. Those 
who entertain this opinion do not deny, that there is a great 
moral change, wrought by the Spirit of God, which must 
pass upon every one, before he can be in a state of salvation. 
This they call conversion, renovation, &c. ; but they tell us 
that the term "regeneration" ought not to be applied to 
this spiritual change; that it ought to be confined. to that 
change of state and of relation to the visible kingdom of 
Christ which is constituted by baptism ; so that a person, 
according to them, may be regenerated, that is, regularly in- 
troduced into the visible church, without being really born of 
the Spirit. This theory, though by no means so fatal in its 
tendency as the preceding, still appears to me liable to the 
following serious objections. 

1. It makes an unauthorised use of an important theologi- 

303 



108 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

cal term. It is vain to say, that, after giving fair notice of 
the sense in which we use a term, no misapprehension or 
harm can result from the constant use of it in that sense. 
The plea is insufficient. If the sense in question be an un- 
usual and especially an unscriptural one, no one can estimate 
the mischief which may result from the use of it in that 
sense. Names are so closely connected with things, that it 
is of the utmost importance to preserve the nomenclature of 
theology from perversion and abuse. If the sense of the 
word " regeneration" which is embraced in this theory, 
were now by common consent admitted, it would give an 
entirely new aspect to all those passages of Scripture in 
which either regeneration or baptism is mentioned, making 
some of them unmeaning, and others ridiculous ; and render 
unintelligible, and in a great measure useless, if not delusive, 
nine-tenths of the best works on the subject of practical reli- 
gion that have ever been written. 

2. But there is a more serious objection. If men be told 
that every one who is baptized, is thereby regenerated-— 
"born of God" — "born of the Spirit," — made a "new 
creature in Christ," — will not the mass of mankind, in spite 
of every precaution and explanation that can be employed, 
be likely to mistake on a fundamental point ; to imagine that 
the disease of our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy 
for it will answer; to lay more stress than they ought upon 
an external rite ; and to make a much lower estimate than 
they ought of the nature and necessity of that holiness with- 
out which no man shall see the Lord ? 

After all, however, although the doctrine of baptismal re- 
generation, in the first and most objectionable sense, is 
known to be rejected by all the truly evangelical divines of 
the church of England, and by the same class in the Protes- 
tant Episcopal church in this country ; yet it cannot be de- 
nied that something, to say the least, very like this doctrine 
is embodied in the baptismal service of that denomination on 
both sides of the Atlantic. The following specimens of its 
language will at once illustrate and confirm my meaning: 
" Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is re- 
generate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let 
us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and 
with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child 
may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." 
And again: " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful 
Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by 
thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adop- 
304 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 109 

tion, and to incorporate him into thy holy church," &c. 
The same language is also repeated in the baptismal service 
for " those of riper years." They are represented as being 
" regenerated ;" as being " born again," and " made heirs of 
salvation ;" and as having " put on Christ." This language 
is differently interpreted, by the Episcopal ministers who 
employ it, according to the opinion which they adopt with 
regard to baptism. Those who coincide in opinion with 
Bishop Mant, and others of similar sentiments, make no 
scruple of avowing, that these expressions literally import, 
what they fully believe, that every one who is duly baptized, 
is, in and by that rite, born of the Spirit, and brought into a 
state of grace and salvation. A second class of interpreters, 
however, consider this language of the Liturgy as merely 
importing that the person baptized is brought into a new 
state, or a new relation to the visible church. While a third 
class, although they acknowledge that the language before 
us, literally interpreted, does certainly express more than a 
mere visible relation, even the participation of truly spiritual 
and saving blessings ; yet say, that they can conscientiously 
employ it, because a Liturgy intended for general use, ought 
to be, and must be, constructed upon the principle, that those 
who come to receive its offices are all to be considered as 
sincere, and as having a right, in the sight of God, to the 
ordinance for which they apply ! And thus it happens, that 
those who reject as Popish and delusive, the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration, as taught by Mant, and those who 
concur with him, feel no difficulty in publicly and solemnly 
repeating this language, every time they administer the ordi- 
nance of baptism. 

It is not for one of another communion to interpose be- 
tween the consciences of Episcopal ministers, and the im- 
port of their public formularies. In fidelity to my own 
principles, however, and as a warning to those of my own 
church who may be assailed by the proselyting efforts of 
some of this denomination, I may be permitted to say, that 
if I believed with Bishop Mant, and his associates in senti- 
ment, the language of the baptismal service would be entirely 
to my taste ; but if not, I could not, on any account, con- 
scientiously employ it. It would not satisfy me to be told, 
that the language of one of the Thirty-nine Articles, and 
some of the language found in the Book of Homilies, bears 
a different aspect. This is, no doubt, true. Still this does 
not remove or alter the language of the baptismal service. 
There it stands, a distress and a snare to thousands of good 
2a2 305 



110 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

men, who acknowledge that they could wish it otherwise 
but dare not modify it in the smallest jot or tittle.* Had I 
no other objection to ministering in the church of England, 
or in the corresponding denomination in this country — this 
part of the Liturgy would alone be an insurmountable one. 
I could not consent continually to employ language, which, 
however explained or counteracted, is so directly adapted to 
deceive in a most vital point of practical religion. I could 
not allow myself to sanction by adoption and use, language 
which, however explained and counteracted in my own min- 
istry, I knew to be presented and urged by many around me 
in its literal import, and declared to be the only true doctrine 
of the church. 

As to the plea, that a Liturgy must necessarily be con- 
structed upon the principle that all who come to its offices 
must be presumed to be sincere, and be solemnly assured, in 
the name of God, that they are so, nothing can be more de- 
lusive. Cannot scriptural truth be as plainly stated, and as 
wisely guarded in a liturgical composition as in any other ? 
Our Methodist brethren have a prescribed form for baptism ; 
and so far as I recollect its language, they have succeeded, 
without apparent difficulty, in making it at once instructive, 
solemn, appropriate, and unexceptionable. And I have heard 
Presbyterian ministers a thousand times tell their hearers, 
with as much distinctness in administering sacraments, as in 
ordinary preaching, that " the sacraments become effectual to 
salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth 
administer them ; but only by the blessing of Christ, and 
the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them." 

But it may be asked, what kind or degree of efficacy do 
Presbyterians consider as connected with baptism ? Do they 
suppose that there is any beneficial influence, physical or 
moral, in all cases, connected with the due administration of 
this sacrament? I answer, none at all. They suppose that 
the washing with water in this ordinance is an emblem and a 
sign of precious benefits ; that it holds forth certain great 
truths, which are the glory of the Christian covenant, and 
the joy of the Christians's heart ; that it is a seal affixed by 
God to his covenant with his people, whereby he certifies 

* An evangelical and deeply conscientious minister of the Episcopal 
church, who, after struggling lor some time with the most distressing 
scruples, as to this very feature in the baptismal service, ventured to 
alter a few words, was forthwith given to understand, that such liber- 
ties would not be tolerated, and was soon constrained to withdraw from 
the Episcopal communion. 
306 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. Ill 

nis purposes of grace, and pledges his blessing to all who re- 
ceive it with a living faith ; nay, that it is the seal of valuable 
outward privileges, even to those who are not then, or at 
any other time, k ' born of the Spirit;" that, as a solemn rite 
appointed by Christ, it is adapted to make a solemn impres- 
sion on the serious mind ; but that when it is administered to 
the persons, or the offspring of those who are entirely desti- 
tute of faith, there is no pledge or certainty that it will be 
accompanied with any blessing. They receive the water, 
but not the Spirit. They are engrafted into the visible 
church, but not into the spiritual body of Christ, and are, 
after baptism, just as they were before, like Simon the 
Sorcerer, "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of 
iniquity." 



(Note C.) 

SPONSORS IN BAPTISM. 

It is well known that the Presbyterian church differs from 
the Episcopal in regard to the subject announced at the head 
of this note. We differ in two respects. First, in not re- 
quiring or encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, 
in the baptism of children, than the parents, when they are 
living and qualified to present themselves in this character : 
and secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting, any god- 
fathers or godmothers at all in cases of adult baptism. My 
object in the remarks which I am about to make on this sub- 
ject, is, not to impugn either the principles or practice of our 
Episcopal brethren ; but simply to state, for the instruction 
of the members of our own church, why we cannot think or 
act with them in relation to this matter. 

It is curious to observe the several steps by which the use 
of sponsors, as now established in the Romish and some 
Protestant churches, reached its present form. Within the 
first five or six hundred years after Christ, there is no evi- 
dence that children were ever presented for baptism by any 
other persons than their parents, provided those parents 
were living, and were professing Christians. When some 
persons in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the 
close of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth century, con- 
tended that it was not lawful, in any case, for any excepting 
their natural parents to offer children in baptism ; that learned 

307 



112 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

and pious father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion, 
that in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the 
parents were dead ; when they were not professing Chris- 
tians ; when they cruelly forsook and exposed their off- 
spring; and when masters had young slaves committed to 
their charge, in these cases, (and the pious Father mentions 
no others,) he maintains that any professing Christians, who 
should be willing to undertake the benevolent charge, might 
with propriety, take these children, offer them in baptism, 
and become responsible for their Christian education. This, 
every one will perceive, is in strict conformity with the 
principles maintained in the foregoing essay, and with the 
doctrine and habits of the Presbvterian church. 

The learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great learn- 
ing, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his " Ecclesi- 
astical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony with- 
in his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors. But 
he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to that 
amount; and at length candidly acknowledges that in the 
early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the presentors 
and sureties for their own children ; and that children were 
presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as 
those already alluded to. It is true, indeed, that some 
writers, more sanguine than discriminating, have quoted 
Dionysius, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria, as affording 
countenance to the use of sponsors in early times. Not one 
of those writers, however, has written a sentence which 
favours the use of any other sponsors than parents, when 
they were in life, and of a proper character to offer their 
children for the sacramental sealin question. Even Diony- 
sius, whose language has, at first view, some appearance of 
favouring such sponsors ; yet, when carefully examined, 
will be found to speak only of sponsors who undertook to 
train up in the Christian religion some of the children of Pa- 
gans, who were delivered, for this purpose, into the hands of 
these benevolent sureties, by their unbelieving parents. But 
this, surely, is not inconsistent with what has been said. 
And, after all, the writings of this very Dionysius are given 
up by the learned Wall, and by the still more learned and 
illustrious Archbishop Usher, as a " gross and impudent 
forgery," unworthy of the least credit. 

It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century, 
that the church of Rome forbade the appearance of parents 
as sponsors for their own children, and required that this 
service be surrendered to other hands. 
308 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 113 

Mention is made, by Cyril, in the fifth century, and by 
Fulgentius in the sixth, of sponsors in some peculiar cases 
of adult baptism. When adults, about to be baptized, were 
dumb, or under the power of delirium, through disease, and 
of course unable to speak for themselves, or to make the 
usual profession ; in such cases it was customary for some 
friend or friends to answer for them, and to bear testimony to 
their good character, and to the fact of their having before 
expressed a desire to be baptized. For this, there was, un 
doubtedly, some reason; and the same thing might, with 
propriety, in conceivable circumstances be done now. From 
this, however, there was a transition soon made to the use of 
sponsors in all cases of adult baptism. This latter, how- 
ever, was upon a different principle from the former. When 
adults had the gifts of speech and reason, and were able to 
answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for such, never 
answered or professed for them. This was invariably done 
by the adult himself. Their only business, as it would ap- 
pear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the spiritu- 
al life of the persons baptized. This office was generally 
fulfilled, in each church, by the deacons when adult males 
were baptized ; and by the deaconesses when females came 
forward to receive this ordinance. 

Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the middle 
ages, no other sponsors than parents seem to have been in 
common use. In one of their catechisms, as preserved by 
Perrin, and Morland, they ask, " By whom ought children 
to be presented in baptism ?" Answer, " By their parents, 
or by any others who may be inspired with this charity ;" 
which is evidently intended to mean, as other documents re- 
specting them show, that where the parents were dead, or 
absent, or could not act, other pious professors of religion 
might take their places. 

According to one of the canons of the church of England, 
" parents are not to be urged to be present when their chil- 
dren are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors 
for their own children." In the Protestant Episcopal church 
in this country, parents " shall be admitted as sponsors if it 
be desired." But in both countries it is required that there be 
godfathers and godmothers for all adults, as well as for infants 

The baptismal service of the Methodist church in the United 1 
States, for infants, does not recognise the use of any sponsors 
at all, excepting the parents, or whatever other "friends" 
may present them. 

It is plain then, that the early history of the church, as 

309 



114 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

well as the word of God, abundantly sustains the doctrine 
and practice of the Presbyterian church in this matter. We 
maintain, that as the right of the children of believers to bap- 
tism, flows from the membership and faith of their parents 
according to the flesh ; so those parents, if living, are the 
only proper persons to present them for the reception of this 
covenant seal. If, however, their proper parents, on any 
account, cannot do this, they may, upon our principles, with 
propriety, be presented by any professed believers, who, 
quoad hoc, adopt them as their children, and are willing to 
engage, as parents, to " bring them up in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord." 

If, indeed, nothing else were contended for in this case, 
than that, when believing parents have pious and peculiar 
friends who are willing to unite with them in engagements to 
educate their children in the true religion, such friends might 
be permitted to stand with them ; there might not be so much 
to condemn. Even then the solemn question might be asked ; 
"Who hath required this at your hands ?" But when the 
system is, to set aside parents ; to require that others take 
their places, and make engagements which they alone, for 
the most part, are qualified to make ; and when, in pursu- 
ance of this system, thousands are daily making engagements 
which they never think of fulfilling, and in most cases, no- 
toriously have it not in their power to fulfil, and, indeed, feel 
no special obligation to fulfil ; we are constrained to regard 
it as a human invention, having no warrant whatever, either, 
from the word of God or primitive usage ; and as adapted, 
on a variety of accounts, to generate evil, much evil, rather 
than good. 



(Note D.) 

CONFIRMATION. 

In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that 
which under this name has been long established in the 
Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some 
Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not com- 
manded, yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not in- 
tended in this note to record a sentence condemnatory of 
those who think proper to employ the rite in question : but 
only to state with brevity some of the reasons why the 

aio 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 115 

fathers of the Presbyterian Church, thought proper to ex- 
clude it from their ritual ; and why their sons, to the present 
hour, have persisted in the same course. 

1. We find no foundation for this rite in the word of God. 
Indeed our Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who 
employ it, do not pretend to find any direct warrant for it in 
Scripture. All they have to allege, which bears the least re- 
semblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in 
Acts viii. 14 — 17 : "Now when the apostles, which were at 
Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, 
they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were 
come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost. (For as yet he had fallen upon none of them ; 
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the 
Holy Ghost." That there is here a reference to the extraor- 
dinary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these 
conferred by extraordinary officers, is so perfectly apparent, 
that it is no wonder the advocates of Confirmation do not 
press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that 
they ever mention it as affording the most remote counte- 
nance to their practice. The diligent reader of Scripture 
■will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands re- 
counted in the New Testament. The first, by Christ him- 
self, to express an authoritative benediction, Matt. xix. Mark 
x. 16 ; the second, in the healing of diseases, Mark xvi. 18, 
Acts xxviii, 8 ; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts 
of the Spirit, Acts viii. 17, xix. 6 ; and the fourth, in setting 
apart persons to sacred office, Acts vi. 6. xiii. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 
14. The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Heb. 
vi. 2, expresses the opinion, that the laying on of hands 
there spoken of, is to be considered as belonging to the third 
class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordi- 
nary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed that it 
rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and 
therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is 
not a syllable or hint in the whole New Testament which 
looks like such a laying on of hands as that for which the 
advocates of Confirmation contend. 

2. Quite as little support for Confirmation can be found in 
the purest and best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards 
the close of the second century, several uncommanded and 
superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance of 
baptism. Among these were anointing with oil. in avowed 
imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration ; administer* 

311 



116 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

ing to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey 
as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge 
of that heavenly Canaan, with all its advantages and happi- 
ness, to which the hopes of the baptized were directed ; the 
laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism, 
for imparting the Holy Spirit; to all which may be added, 
that immediately after the close of this century, we find the 
practice of exorcism introduced as a preliminary to baptism, 
and as a means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate 
for this ordinance. These superstitious additions were made 
to succeed each other in the following order ; exorcism, con- 
fession ; renunciation ; baptism ; chrismation, or anointing 
with oil, which was done in the form of a cross ; and finally, 
the laying on of hands, or confirmation, which immediately 
followed the anointing with oil, and the administration of the 
simple element above mentioned. " As soon as we are bap- 
tized," says Tertullian, " we are anointed with the blessed 
unction." And he adds, " This unction is according to the 
Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed 
with oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or con- 
firmation, immediately followed the unction. " As soon as 
we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian, " We 
are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This was con- 
sidered as essential to the completion of the ordinance. 
" We do not receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father, 
"in baptism, but being purified by the water, we are pre- 
pared for the Holy Ghost, and by the laying on of hands, the 
soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then, 
the anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition 
of hands for conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administra- 
tion of milk and honey to the candidate, were all human ad- 
ditions to baptism, which came in about the same time, and 
ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same 
light with a great variety of other additions to the institutions 
of Christ, which, though well meant, and not destitute of 
expressiveness, are yet wholly unauthorized by the King and 
Head of the Church. 

3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an 
ordinary part of the baptismal service, was added, by human 
invention, to that ordinance, it always immediately followed 
the application of water, and the anointing with oil. " As 
soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian 
" we are anointed, and then hands are laid on." And it is 
further acknowledged by all, that every one who was com- 
petent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands. 
312 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 117 

The two things always went together ; or rather formed 
parts of the baptismal ordinance, which was not thought to 
be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who 
had applied the water and the unction. And this continued 
to be the case, throughout the greater part of the church, for 
the first three hundred years. Then the term bishop signi- 
fied the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. E very- 
pastor was a bishop, as had been the case in apostolic times. 
And then, in ordinary cases, none but the bishop or pastor 
of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only 
laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption, 
when Prelacy was gradually brought in, it became custom- 
ary, for the sake of doing greater honour to the prelates, 
to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of 
their official prerogative. Jerome (Dialog. Adv. Lucifer,) 
expressly declares, that the committing this benediction 
wholly to the bishops, was done " rather in honour of the 
priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law." 
Even now, throughout the Greek Church, this rite is admin- 
istered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism, 
and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize. 
In like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches, 
in which confirmation is retained, it is administered by every 
pastor. Still even when confined to prelates, this imposi- 
tion of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated from 
the baptism : for the children were commonly carried to 
the bishop to have his hands laid upon them as soon as con- 
venient. After a while, however, it became customary to 
separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation, 
or the laying on of the bishop's hands, began to be post- 
poned for a number of years, according to circumstances ; 
until, at length, it was often left till the arrival of adult age, 
and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All these 
progressive steps evidently mailed a mere human invention, 
for which there is no divine appointment or warrant what- 
ever. 

4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was 
plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary, and answers 
no purpose which is not quite as well, to say the least, pro- 
vided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. It 
is said to be desirable that there should be some transaction 
or solemnity by which young people who have been bap 
tized in their infancy, may be called to recognise their reli- 
gious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves 
the profession and the vows made on their behalf in bap- 
2B 313 



118 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

tism ? Granted. There can be no doubt that such a solem- 
nity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in its tendency. 
But have we not just such a solemnity in the Lord's Sup- 
per; an ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on 
which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who 
are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or ra- 
tional sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in 
fact, specifically intended, among other things, to answer 
this very purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal 
acknowledgment and profession of the truth, the service, and 
the hopes of Christ: — have we not, I say, in the Sacramen- 
tal Supper just such a solemnity as we need for the end in 
question — simple, rational, scriptural, and to which all our 
children may come, just as soon as they are prepared in any 
form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confir- 
mation, then, for the purpose for which it is professed to be 
desired. We have something better, because appointed of 
God ; quite as expressive ; more solemn ; and free from cer- 
tain objectionable features which are now to be mentioned. 
5. Finally; we reject the rite of confirmation in our 
Church, because in addition to all the reasons which have 
been mentioned, we consider the formula prescribed for its 
administration in the Church of England, and substantially 
adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable 
to the most serious objections. We do not think it a duty 
in any form, to practise a rite which the Saviour never ap- 
pointed ; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the 
language with which the rite in question is administered by 
those who employ it. In the " Order of Confirmation," as 
prescribed and used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States, the following language occurs. Before 
the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his 
prayer repeats the following language ; " Almighty and ever 
living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy 
servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given 
unto them forgiveness of all their sins," &c. Sic. And again, 
in another prayer, after the act of confirmation is completed, 
he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus — " We make our 
humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon 
whom, after the example of thy holy apostles, we have now 
laid our hands ; to certify them by this sig?i of thy favour 
and gracious goodness towards them," &c. And also, in 
the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneel- 
ing before him already have the holy sanctifying spirit of 
Christ, he prays that they " may all daily increase in this 
Holy Spirit more and more." 
314 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 119 

Such is the language addressed to large circles of young 
people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason 
to fear, are very far from having been " born of the Spirit," 
in the Bible sense of that phrase ; nay, some of whom mani- 
fest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety 
would be pained ;o see them at a communion table ; yet the 
bishop pronounces them all — and he appeals to heaven for 
the truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regene- 
rate, not only by water, but also by the Holy Ghost ; cer- 
tifies to ihem, in the name of God, that they are objects of 
the divine "favour ;" and declares that, being already in a 
state of grace and favour with God, they are called to " grow 
in grace ;" to " increase in the Holy Spirit more and more." 

There are many who have long regarded, and who now 
regard this language not only with regret, but with shudder- 
ing, as adapted to cherish false hopes, nay, to deceive and 
destroy souls by wholesale. I must again say, that if there 
were no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the 
Protestant Episcopal church, this alone would be an insur- 
mountable one. For it must come home to the conscience 
and the feelings, not of the bishop only, but of every pastor 
in that church who has, from time to time, a circle of belo- 
ved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to say, that 
the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of 
course born of the Spirit, and in a state of favour with God. 
This is the very point of our objection. She so presumes, 
and undertakes to " certify'''' them of it. Presbyterian min- 
isters do not, dare not, use such language. They do not 
and dare not, undertake to " certify" to any number of the 
most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered 
round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace 
and salvation, and that they have nothing to do but to " follow 
on," and " increase in the Holy Spirit." Nor is it a suffi- 
cient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a fixed 
composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate 
between different characters. This is denied. Every en- 
lightened and faithful minister of whatever denomination, 
who is at liberty to employ such language as he approves, 
knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preach- 
ing, in discriminating and expressive terms ; and how to 
avoid modes of expression adapted to deceive and betray un- 
wary souls. It is surely not impracticable to address the 
largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner which 
though not adapted to the precise case of every individual 
shall be at least free from error, free from every thingf of a 

315 



120 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

deceptive and ensnaring character. Our Methodist breth 
ren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed liturgical 
form for baptism ; which they have rendered sufficiently 
discriminating, and at the same time unexcepiionably safe. 
And, what is not unworthy of notice in this place, though 
the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently 
the modei which, to a certain extent, they have kept before 
them in constructing their own, they have wisely discarded 
altogether the ceremony of confirmation from their ritual. 

The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical 
rite, seldom fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion 
decisively in favour of it. This is doing great injustice to 
that illustrious man. Calvin directly and warmly opposes 
the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct ordi- 
nance, claiming divine authority in the Church of God. 
This he reprobates ; and especially the practice of confining 
the administration of it to prelates; but adds, " that he has 
no objection to parents bringing their children to their minis- 
ter, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of ado- 
lescence, to be examined according to the catechism in com- 
mon use, and then, for the sake of greater dignity and reve- 
rence, closing the ceremony by the imposition of hands. 
" Such imposition of hands, therefore, says he, as is simply 
connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it 
were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by su- 
perstition." (Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. xix. § 4). But 
what serves to throw light on Calvin's real sentiments on 
this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts viii. 17, he 
reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the sup- 
port of their sacrament of confirmation ; and not only asserts, 
but proves, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, re- 
lates, not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying, but to the 
miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since 
ceased in the church ; and, of course, that the passage in 
question ought never to be quoted in favour of confirmation, 
or of any other permanent rite in the Christian Church 



(Note E.) 

VOTE OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY RESPECTING BAPTISM. 

It has been sometimes ignorantly, and most erroneously 
asserted that the Wesminster Assembly of divines, in put- 
316 



ADDITIONAL NOTES. 121 

ting to vote, whether baptism should be performed by sprink- 
ling or immersion, carried it in favour of sprinkling, by a 
majority of one only. This is wholly incorrect. The facts 
were these. When the committee who had been charged 
with preparing a " Directory for the worship of God," 
brought in their report, they had spoken of the mode of bap- 
tism thus : " It is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child " 
To this Dr. Lightfoot, among others, objected; not because 
he doubted of the entire sufficiency of sprinkling; for he de- 
cidedly preferred sprinkling to immersion ; but because he 
thought there was an impropriety in pronouncing that mode 
lawful only, when no one present had any doubts of its be- 
ing so, and when almost all preferred it. Others seemed to 
think, that by saying nothing about dipping, that mode was 
meant to be excluded, as not a lawful mode. This they did 
not wish to pronounce. When, therefore, the clause, as 
originally reported, was put to vote, there were twenty-five 
votes in favour of it, and twenty-four against it. After this 
vote, a motion was made and carried, that it be recommitted. 
The next day, when the committee reported, and when some 
of the members still seemed unwilling to exclude all mention 
of dipping, Dr. Lightfoot remarked, that to say that pouring 
or sprinkling was lawful, would be " all one as saying, that 
it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord's Supper." 
He, therefore, moved that the clause in the " Directory" re- 
specting the mode of baptism, be expressed thus : 

" Then the minister is to demand the name of the child, 
which being told him, he is to say (calling the child by his 
name) — 

" / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

"As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the 
child with w r ater, which, for the manner of doing it, is not 
only lawful, but sufficient, and most expedient to be, by 
vouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, 
without adding any other ceremony." This was carried. 
See Lightfoot 1 s Life, prefixed to the first volume of his 
Works, (folio edition,) p. 4; compared with Nettle's His- 
tory of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 106, 107, compared with the 
Appendix, No. II. (quarto edition,) where the " Directory," 
as finally passed, is given at full length. 

We do not learn, precisely, either from Lightfoot's biogra- 
pher, (who was no other than the indefatigable Strype,) or 
from Neal, by what vote the clause, as moved by Lightfoot 
was finally adopted; but Neal expressly tells us, that " the 
Directory passed the Assembly with great unanimity," 
2b2 317 



122 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 

From this statement, it is evident, that the question which 
was carried in the Assembly, by a majority of one, was, not 
whether affusion or sprinkling was a lawful mode of bap- 
tism ; but whether all mention of dipping, as one of the law- 
ful modes should be omitted. This, in an early stage of the 
discussion, was carried, by a majority of one in the affirma 
tive. But it. would seem that the clause, as finally adopted, 
which certainly was far more decisive in favour of sprinkling 
or affusion, was passed " with great unanimity.'''' At any 
rate, nothing can be more evident, than that the clause as it 
originally stood, being carried by one vote only, and after- 
wards, when recommitted, and so altered as to be much 
stronger in favour of sprinkling, and then adopted without 
difficulty, the common statement of this matter by our Bap- 
tist brethren is an entire misrepresentation. 



318 






No. VIII. 
INFANT BAPTISM 

SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE: 



AND 



BAPTISM 



SPRINKLING OR AFFUSION, 



THE MOST SUITABLE AND EDIFYING MODE. 



By SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. 

PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THE 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NSW JERSEY. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 



No. 8. 

CLOSE COMMUNION. 

It is a pity that brethren, who embrace a common faith 
with us, who are enlisted under the same banners, and who 
will finally sit with us as guests at the Marriage Supper of 
the Lamb, should here on earth feel under the necessity of 
spreading a separate table. In this respect they maintain an 
unenviable singularity. How long shall it be so? How long 
shall their churches be the only place on earth, or in heaven, 
where the true disciple receives no welcome to the full com- 
munion of the saints? Surely the sooner this exclusive 
principle is extirpated the better. Why will not our brethren 
catch the spirit of one of their brightest luminaries, the illus- 
trious Robert Hall? Let his sentiments prevail, and we 
should hail the dawn of a brighter day. Such a reformation, 
such a union of Christian brethren, as the adoption of his 
principles would effect, (to use his own language,) " would 
be a nearer approach to the ultimate triumph of the church, 
than the annals of time have yet recorded. In the accom- 
plishment of our Saviour's prayer, we should behold a 
demonstration of the divinity of his mission which the most 
impious could not resist ; we should behold in the church a 
peaceful haven, inviting us to retire from the tossings and 
perils of this unquiet ocean to a sacred enclosure, a seques- 
tered spot, which the storms and tempests of the world were 
not permitted to invade." 

PRAYER FOR A BLESSING ON BAPTISM. 

COME, Holy Ghost, descend from high, 
Baptizer of our Spirits, Thou ! 
The sacramental seal apply, 
And witness with the water now. 

Exert thy energy divine, 
And sprinkle the atoning blood ; 
May Father, Son, and Spirit join 
To seal this child, a child of God ! 






JV V^w-v- 



',fe^«WW^'*V\ 






mfflSm 



W§mmm&^- 












MMMMGMbf 



PreservationTechnologies 



iiMPf 






^v'v^w v ! , 






,w WVi M 






■-^mmm 



mm 



l&tiVVWP 






v • ^ vv v sr ' 



- / 'VVv V U,"V 






Wmmw mm 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 670 303 3 




BSni 



